Archive: Opinions

Taylor Swift wrote a barbed, open love letter on her blog to Apple a few weeks ago in which she took the company to task for its announced policy on paying musicians for streaming their work on Apple Music during a three month free-trial period.  Apple was not going to pay the artists.  Swift said her new mega-hit album would not be on Apple Music, and gently, but firmly told the company that artists need to be paid for their work.

"I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company," Swift wrote in an open letter.  She concluded with, "But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

By the next day Apple had revised its policy, promising to pay the artists, although a later report said they would not be paying as much during the trial period as they would once they began charging for the service.  But evidently that was enough to persuade Swift to allow '1989' to stream on the service, which officially launched Tuesday.

Apple got it wrong, and apparently still has it wrong, though less wrong than originally.  Swift is spot-on right.  Artists should be paid fair market value for the work they do.  Just about everyone else gets paid for their work, so why does our society assume that art should be free?  Even if Apple is giving away their service for three months (which, believe me, will result in plenty of profits for the company in the long run -- and in the short run!) that doesn't strip the artists' work of its value.

You know those corporate giveaways you get at conventions?  Everything from branded stress balls to pen sets to personal electric fans to cups that fit in your car's cup holder to tote bags...  Businesses give these things away for free.  The purpose is to keep potential clients and customers aware of them, remind them of the value of their product or service.  Those items are part of their marketing expenses.  Nobody questions that they have to pay for these specially branded items.  So why should Apple, with more money than most of the countries on the planet, get to stiff musicians?

Sure, some artists, like Swift, already have more money than they know what to do with.  But what does that have to do with the monetary value of their work?  Swift took up the banner for all musicians, most of whom struggle and have every right to expect royalties for their work.

I used to develop software and was a member of a world-wide independent software developer's group, which in the good old days maintained a private forum on CompuServe (remember CompuServe?).  Like artists, software developers have a hard time convincing folks that their work shouldn't be free, and I would say that all of my colleagues in this organization ranged from concerned to bitter about software piracy and the prevaling attitudes that they should give their work away.

I relayed a story that I thought would resonate with them.  An Emmons, New York (just northeast of Oneonta) farmer, Michael Muehl, had made a likeness of Snoopy, the beagle from the Charles Shultz comic strip 'Peanuts', with different colored shingles on the roof of the barn as a tribute to the beloved comic strip.  It could be seen by drivers on Interstate 88.  It was written up in the local newspaper, and thus came to the attention of Shultz's lawyers, who viewed it as copyright infringement.  The farmer was issued a 'Cease and Desist' letter, to which he responded with good grace and humor.  He replaced Snoopy on his barn roof with the word 'Doggone'.

While I understood Mr. Muehl's love of 'Peanuts' and didn't fault him for wanting to pay fan tribute, this was a case of using someone else's work for free without permission.  It seemed to me that my fellow programmers would love a story about someone protecting his intellectual rights.

Instead I was lambasted for sympathizing with Shultz.  This was a beloved comic strip character, they said.  It was Snoopy! they said.  Everyone should be able to share Snoopy freely, they said.  When I made the explicit comparison to their own work being pirated, they refused to acknowledge that computer software was at all equivalent to art.

Years later I worked for a major online service.  The word came down from on-high that any time a member uploaded anything to do with Star Trek we were to delete it, because the copyright holder, Paramount, was extremely protective of its franchise.  No doubt that was disappointing for Trekkies who just wanted to be creative about their enthusiasm, but Paramount has the right to control the work it owns and shouldn't be faulted for doing so.

When I started playing the Celtic harp I hired myself out to organizations to perform music and talk about the history of the instrument at their meetings.  I didn't charge much because I was just getting used to performing and didn't think I was that good.  But I did think I was somewhat good.  I think I only charged $50, for which they got an hour's program that included many, many more hours of practicing plus my travel costs, the cost of the harp and music and so on -- a pretty good deal for them.  A leader of a woman's club in northern Illinois took me to task for charging for my program.  She told me she played the piano all her life and had never once asked to be paid for it.  I politely told her that was her prerogative, as was her choice to have me play the harp at her club (she hired me despite my evil insistence on money-grubbing that 50 bucks).

So here was a musician who didn't value her own work.  Of course, I never heard her play -- maybe she was valuing it correctly.  I don't know.  But making music is work, and in every other segment of human endeavor except volunteerism (which by definition means you choose -- nobody chooses for you -- to give something to someone) people get paid for their work.  You hire a consultant who can do things you don't know how to do or don't want to do yourself.  You can get a handyman for cheap, but you never question paying him something.  And, as Swift mentioned, you ain't gonna get an iPhone for nuthin'!

Obviously our society values art, and especially music.  It is everywhere.  American Idol, The Voice and countless other shows are devoted to the business of music, and it prevails in almost every aspect of our lives from major motion pictures to stadium concerts to elevators and doctors' offices.

Taylor Swift got it right.  She should be commended for standing up not only for her own work, but for the work of all musicians and artists.  And anyone else who works for a living.

v11i26