This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/03/taylor-swift-spotify-artists-discography-streaming-services

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Taylor Swift v Spotify: back catalogue removed from streaming services Taylor Swift v Spotify: back catalogue removed from streaming services
(about 1 hour later)
All of Taylor Swift’s albums have been removed from Spotify, in an escalation of the artist’s bad blood with the streaming music service. All of Taylor Swift’s albums have been removed from Spotify and other streaming music services, in an escalation of the artist’s previous policy of “windowing” her new album releases.
When Swift’s new album 1989 was released on 27 October, it was notably absent from Spotify. The absence appeared to be an example of “windowing”, common in digital releases: by withholding the streaming release for a limited period, labels hope to boost album sales. When Swift’s new album 1989 was released on 27 October, it was not available to stream on Spotify and its rivals, following the same policy used for its predecessor Red.
But rather than shake it off, Spotify went on the attack, informing customers that “The artist or their representatives have decided not to release this album on Spotify. We are working on it and hope they will change their mind soon.” As of today, though, that album and Swift’s entire back catalogue have been removed. While Swift and her label Big Machine Music have yet to comment, Spotify broke the news in a blog post.
“We hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone,” said the company.
“We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community.”
Spotify added that nearly 16 million of its 40 million active users had played Swift’s songs in the last 30 days, while her tracks had been added to more than 19 million playlists on its service.
According to play-count statistics on Spotify this morning, Red’s tracks had been played more than 260m times on the service since the album was made available to stream in May 2013, eight months after it first went on sale.
When 1989 was windowed, Spotify informed its users that “The artist or their representatives have decided not to release this album on Spotify. We are working on it and hope they will change their mind soon.”
Shortly after, the firm’s head of public policy, Jonathan Prince, tweeted in a similar style, asking the artist not to “let down” her fans.Shortly after, the firm’s head of public policy, Jonathan Prince, tweeted in a similar style, asking the artist not to “let down” her fans.
Hey @taylorswift13 the haters gonna hate, hate, hate but 40 million+ Spotifiers gonna play, play, play. Don’t let them down for too long. xoHey @taylorswift13 the haters gonna hate, hate, hate but 40 million+ Spotifiers gonna play, play, play. Don’t let them down for too long. xo
But the requests were to no avail. The entirety of Swift’s back catalogue has now been clean removed from Spotify, as well as from other streaming services including France’s Deezer. Now those 40 million Spotifiers won’t be able to play, play, play any of her songs unless Big Machine – which the Guardian has contacted for a comment – relents
“We hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone,” says Spotify in a statement. “We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community.”
Tracks from Swift’s previous album, Red, had been streamed over 260m times on Spotify alone.
The decision for the removal may have been prompted by the record-breaking first-week sales of 1989, which looks like it could surpass Swift’s wildest dreams to overtake the 1.319m copies Britney Spears’ debut sold in its first week. That would make Swift’s album the highest selling first week by a female solo artist in US history.The decision for the removal may have been prompted by the record-breaking first-week sales of 1989, which looks like it could surpass Swift’s wildest dreams to overtake the 1.319m copies Britney Spears’ debut sold in its first week. That would make Swift’s album the highest selling first week by a female solo artist in US history.
Withdrawing Swift’s discography from streaming sites is just one example of the aggressive steps her label has gone to in marketing the album. The artist was forced to intervene personally after British fans complained that one track, released to American audiences in the run-up to the album’s release, was withheld from the UK.Withdrawing Swift’s discography from streaming sites is just one example of the aggressive steps her label has gone to in marketing the album. The artist was forced to intervene personally after British fans complained that one track, released to American audiences in the run-up to the album’s release, was withheld from the UK.
“To all my wonderful UK fans, I realise that you are not yet able to get ‘Out Of The Woods’ due to a new strategy my record label is working on in the UK,” she explained in a post on Tumblr. “My good friend Ed Sheeran utilised the same strategy with ‘One’ in the UK and he seemed very happy with the feedback from his fans. But, ultimately, it’s down to you. Let me know.”“To all my wonderful UK fans, I realise that you are not yet able to get ‘Out Of The Woods’ due to a new strategy my record label is working on in the UK,” she explained in a post on Tumblr. “My good friend Ed Sheeran utilised the same strategy with ‘One’ in the UK and he seemed very happy with the feedback from his fans. But, ultimately, it’s down to you. Let me know.”
The Guardian has asked Swift’s label, Big Machine Records, for comment.The Guardian has asked Swift’s label, Big Machine Records, for comment.