I meant to say boycott the iTunes Music Store but continue supporting your local indie app developers by still shopping on the App Store. You should listen to your music on Spotify.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sends Press 'Decade of iTunes' Anniversary Keepsake with 100 Free Songs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I meant to say boycott the iTunes Music Store but continue supporting your local indie app developers by still shopping on the App Store. You should listen to your music on Spotify.
Mate somebody needs to invite you to waffles or what.cd. TPB is for junkies.
That said I also use iTunes just to browse, if I am going to support an artist I do so with a concert ticket or buying directly from the label shop (when they have one).
And I often listen to the free snippet on iTunes and go and buy the real CD.
I know many musicians and try to support them as best I can. It's the parasite 'recording industry' that is sucking their, and our money, living off of their creativity...
"Out in Hollywood, the paper money rolls
They feed their egos, instead of their souls
A million here, a million there, a mindless corporate dance
Get paid for borkin' off, in the south of France
They don't do the shows, but they act like the stars
They fly around in G4's and suck on big cigars
It ain't about the talent, it ain't about the skill
It's all about the silly stupid horse poop deal
You write the big checks, but I pay your bills
Now someone's got to tell you 'bout overkill"
Free music? I've been getting that since I first used the internet. Big deal.
Why did some of the press get something and the actual users/paying customers get nothing, and if we did, what/where ;-)
Why did some of the press get something and the actual users/paying customers get nothing, and if we did, what/where ;-)
Easy, when you read the history of Copyright and how its been used for profiteering (which it was never designed for) and how major companies control the creative works via "agents", this goes against the fundamentals of copyright and free sharing - read: http://questioncopyright.org/promise
Excerpt "There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never primarily about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors that is, publishers, which today includes record companies. But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone.
We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been."
Excerpt 2 "None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help."
Excerpt 3 "Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model mass pressings with centralized distribution to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors."
Excerpt 4 "To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful.
They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."
In the end copying is good, not bad as you are merely copying what already exists. Of course the "industry" does not want people to know the truth because they are profiteering from it.
okay mate, don't you get it? By saying that pirating software or music does not harm the artist or developer in anyway shape or form is completely retarded. It really doesn't matter whether you consider pirating or stealing to be the same thing. It also really doesn't matter whether you think piracy is stifling creativity or not. What really matters is that YOU are actively taking somebody's hard work and sharing it online, making it so the the artist or developer does not receive (for lack of a better term) "royalty" for their work.
You might not think that piracy is such a big deal, but to somebody who's major source of income is primarily from online content. Its a pretty big friggin deal. For example, RoosterTeeth primarily makes it money through CD sales, Youtube views and other merch. If people were to start copying content and start uploading it to their channels, it would cost them quite a lot of views and ad revenue. Same goes for their music and DVDs, if one person uploads it online for free, there wouldn't be that much of a demand for their soundtracks or DVDs.
So you can start quoting whatever you think the definition of piracy is. In the end the only people that are getting screwed over, are the small companies and the people who are actively trying to make an actual living off of their work. So don't be so proud that you pirate, if you want to 'stick it to the corporations' there are better ways to do it, such as buying from the artist directly. Pirating is definitely not a way to do so.
ON Spotify you can dowload to your iDevice and play without the need of a connection.
Jessica, it isn't "hatred" but instead a little thing you might bump into one day, quite by accident I'm sure, called critical thinking.
Have you never wondered how the illusion of good press for a product is maintained, ie, bought and sold?
Go look up "payola" in Wikipedia. A mind is a terrible thing to waste on corporate propaganda!
To be fair, they let you sync music for "offline play" with both the desktop and iPhone apps.
Feel free to buy it if you really want it that bad. There aren't any exclusive songs on there as far as I know... Really, they should give away over $100 of music to everybody? Yeah right...
Last edited:
I as a collector of everything iPod AND iTunes wants this card and booklet bad! I'm not interested in the value or the free download of songs. Only the card...but Apple couldn't care less
