Apple threatens to remove music if bands don’t agree to new royalty policy

While the major labels can weather the resulting loss of revenue, losing a significant number of your sales from the world's largest music store for a full quarter is likely to put some indie labels and artists in a position where they're unable to pay their bills. Apple Music's impact will likely ripple out to sales at other stores, too, which will worsen its impact on revenues. And while artists can at least fall back on touring revenue, small labels don't have that option.

I can see why labels and artists are upset. Apple Music's free trial may very well have a ruinous effect on their livelihoods.

So, I'm not sure the claim of "will remove bands" is entirely accurate. They might remove Brian Jonestown Massacre, but I'd like to have a good look at the contract they have with their record label, and the label has with Apple, before I expand such a claim. Maybe Newcombe doesn't know that it's a bargaining position between his label (or affiliated labels) and Apple...because while he's obviously really, really mad, I'm unsure if I believe his situation is entirely representative of the entire sphere of musicians out to make some money in this arena. In other words, maybe he signed a bad contract and should go yell at the mirror for a little while just to be fair.

While I'm on this soapbox, I'd also like to point out that unless Newcombe has a contractual obligation to his label to have music on iTunes, then pack up and leave. Go join TIDAL on principle. Or, even more to his point about wanting to get paid, go exclusively with Bandcamp and set the sales price to $50 per track. Take a stand, show the world - actions speak louder than words is an old but good expression for cases like this.

Again, unless the contract he/they signed handcuffs their decision making, there are a lot of options other than ranting at a behemoth retailer with a significant market share. Do I work for Apple or even use iTunes personally? Nope. Do I like getting pennies from Spotify versus some pretty decent revenue from iTunes or Amazon? Not particularly. I've marched down my own path as an independent who doesn't make a living in music, mostly because I've never wanted to try making a living in music. It's a ridiculously hard industry, and I dislike living in poverty quite a bit.

It will be interesting to see what the 'investigations' turn up regarding Apple's negotiating tactics and behavior during this process. Many people understand they're sitting on a giant pile of off-shore, un-taxed cash...and believe the company could pay artists / labels / meat popsicles like me for every listener's 3 months worth of royalties without a catastrophic impact to its business. But, like with those billions of dollars, I'm also aware that Apple's mentality seems to be "We don't want to pay, and if we don't have to pay, we won't pay." I don't like it, but I'm not remotely surprised by it.

A band like Brian Jonestown Massacre might control all or most of their streaming rights. The band is only important to Apple if they are helping Apple's marketing for Apple Music.

It's heavy handed, but it's typical Apple: unless you are a huge partner, you have to sign up for the whole enchilada, no piecemealy crap. Hanging back a few months to ride the future success of Apple Music's marketing plan without being a part of the marketing effort? That doesn't really seem fair either.

Apple has no time for hesitant minor partners. You're either in, or you're out.

Unfortunate comparisons to George Bush and Heidi Klum are unfortunate.

does this constitute a basis for suing Apple under anti-monopoly laws?

Seems simple enough.

As for this being a 'threat'. It's clearly not - it's a mutual disagreement. The statement could just as easily be 'some bands abandon iTunes because they don't want to give free trials'