Apple's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify

[LovingTeddy]

Duh. But, at least embrace you're a thief. Piracy is theft. You can justify however you want, and you can still call yourself a moral person. I don't care either, but at least admit what you're doing: stealing. This is why China will never be successful, plus the children ******** in streets in public.

You cannot steal something that does bro physically exist. So downloading music is not thief, I am not stealing something. I am just getting all these 1 and 0 from one source to my computers.

Good artist steals, Apple steals as well. That's why Apple is so successful, shameless stealing ideas from others and improve upon it. Call it original

Duh. But, at least embrace you're a thief. Piracy is theft. You can justify however you want, and you can still call yourself a moral person. I don't care either, but at least admit what you're doing: stealing. This is why China will never be successful, plus the children ******** in streets in public.

You don't have to give me a lecture on how I do stuff. I won't pay for music and movie, if I can get for free. No matter what you say, you don't need tell me what is moral. I DON'T care.

I give zero **** about if China be successful. I just live my life as usual.

And you cannot still something that physically not exist. Download music and movie is not thief.

 

[PRO Musician]

Do any of you know how hard it is to make money touring? You have to be a big hit artist first. I have done 6 US tours so I know. I have had nearly 100,000 streams in 20 countries from 3 records and I will not be touring anytime soon under my name as an artist, and have been RAPED by streaming rates! But continue to make a living as a hired gun playing cover songs, and in the past with hit making stars.
From the monopoly laws being lifted from radio station ownership in the 90's to everyone pretending there was nothing wrong with stealing music on the internet, my business has had been looted in a heinous sort of way in the last 20 years.
[doublepost=1468686708][/doublepost]

You cannot steal something that does bro physically exist. So downloading music is not thief, I am not stealing something. I am just getting all these 1 and 0 from one source to my computers.

Good artist steals, Apple steals as well. That's why Apple is so successful, shameless stealing ideas from others and improve upon it. Call it original


You don't have to give me a lecture on how I do stuff. I won't pay for music and movie, if I can get for free. No matter what you say, you don't need tell me what is moral. I DON'T care.

I give zero **** about if China be successful. I just live my life as usual.

And you cannot still something that physically not exist. Download music and movie is not thief.

Tell Edward Snowden that not it has to be physical to be theft. You spout a fine ignorance!
[doublepost=1468686838][/doublepost]And Spotify uses Movie studio style voodoo accounting! All lies and hidden expenses to keep their bargaining position.

 

[ani4ani]

I never realized how many people thought businesses were moral, benevolent, entities until I read this thread. Why in the world would any business be moral or benevolent?

I think we all know how business behaves, it's just the way Apple spins its' story that it is always promoting the moral high ground and acting on behalf of the consumer / artist / worker (choose any you like) when we all know they are acting for Apple, as they should.

 

[PRO Musician]

Sounds simpler and fairer; kicking Spotify and Google is just an added side bonus ;-)

Its crazy how anti artist Google is in its constant efforts to fight paying us (music artists) a damn thing! The middle class recording artist is just bereft from things like this!

 

[Michael Goff]

Genius - until you're the competition. Then what, blame the political party you dislike because they're the one and only cause?



Why the heck do lobbyists bring in government involvement? You cannot have it both ways if you want a truly "free market", surely?
[doublepost=1468680714][/doublepost]

Until those make it such. Depends on the details. Price manipulation is one obvious example of being anti-competitive.

They don't have the marketshare for anticompetitive laws to hit them. And they're just asking the Government to do it.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Not anti-competitive at all. Anti-Competitive would be dumping: offering an incredibly cheap or free to drive competition out, then increasing the price. This would be like Apple offering Apple music for free for years, driving Spotify out of business, then increasing the price. Don't think they could drive YouTube/Google out of a free tier since Google has a ridiculous amount of cash as well. Spotify, doesn't.

I vaguely remember a streaming company offering their service for zero cost and losing great deals of money on it in hopes of driving out the competition (rdio, qriosity, napster) so that they would eventually be able to properly monetize and earn oodles of cash. I believe they became the largest streaming music company in the world with that strategy. I'm sure everyone with concerns about a "fair" climate in the streaming music industry will immediately denounce the anti-competitive practices of that business as soon as we can remember who that was.

 

[Michael Goff]

Of course, all this could just be due to the "sudden" interest of Spotify not liking Apple.

Seems like Apple's really jealous because Spotify can get more subscribers due to a free option. and Apple users must cancel.

Why would Apple be jealous of customers that cost more money than they bring in?

 

[LovingTeddy]

Its crazy how anti artist Google is in its constant efforts to fight paying us (music artists) a damn thing! The middle class recording artist is just bereft from things like this!

Wait until Apple drives out all the completion became only one on the field. Then Apple can do whatever they want. By then, Apple won't treat artist any good.

Apple does that because it wants pretend to be good company that think of artist, but really want drive out all the competition. When the time comes, Apple will show its true face.

 

[HopefulHumanist]

Wait until Apple drives out all the completion became only one on the field. Then Apple can do whatever they want. By then, Apple won't treat artist any good.

Apple does that because it wants pretend to be good company that think of artist, but really want drive out all the competition. When the time comes, Apple will show its true face.

They'll treat them better than you do.

 

[gnasher729]

If Apple chose to pay more that's their own decision, but they're knowingly hurting the competition by doing this. Streaming music is expensive and Spotify's free tier cannot cover a higher fee. They pay the royalties they need but this would hard blow to them. It's extremely anti-competitive of Apple's sake to stick their nose in business that's not theirs.

Some people threw accusations of "anti-competitiveness" around. Knowingly hurting the competition is not anti-competitive. Especially if this is going to put more money into the pockets of musicians, I'm all _for_ hurting the competition.

Look, anyone offering a free tier is obviously hurting their competitors by undercutting their prices. Why are you not complaining? But they can only offer free streaming by hurting the musicians who actually produce the music and the whole basis for music streaming services. If your business is based on hurting the musicians, then I feel not the slightest sympathy for you. If you can't run your business without hurting the musicians, then you shouldn't run that business.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Duh. But, at least embrace you're a thief. Piracy is theft. You can justify however you want, and you can still call yourself a moral person. I don't care either, but at least admit what you're doing: stealing.

Although I understand your point, if you are going to be pedantic it helps greatly to also be correct. Copyright infringement is not theft.

 

[smacrumon]

Agreed. Luckily, this isn't anti-competitive.

No doubt the courts in different jurisdictions around the world will eventually decide on that and not a forum.

 

[oneMadRssn]

So you want people who make music to earn less in order to coddle a bunch of mooches because if they can't mooch they will instead just steal like trashy thieves. Got it.

Is there any data that supports the assertion that people who make music earn less under the streaming regime than they did in past times? I seem to recall that musicians, other than those with with platinum singles, have always made earned very little. The term "starving artist" has been around a lot longer than the internet.

This is a policy question. So it should be viewed in the right context. Does the average recording artist make more or less (adjusted for inflation) than a similarly situated average recording artist made, in the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s? Etc... If I had to venture a guess, I think the average artist actually makes a tad more today with streaming, but I also bet the standard deviation has grown a lot, meaning some make a lot less and some make a lot more.

 

[Rigby]

There's no place for a free tier with apps like Spotify and Youtube, and it won't last with or without this decision. Artists are getting royally screwed, and quite frankly I'm not sure why Spotify and Youtube can get away with it.

Free belongs with apps like basic Pandora (radio style music consumption). If you get to choose the songs that you play, then you should pay for it. It's the only fair option for the artists.

The Spotify free tier on mobile devices does not allow you to freely choose the songs you play.

 

[farmboy]

Someone needs to kick Apple in the rear. Seriously, I love free music on Spotify and I don't want that to go away.

Yeah, screw the musicians, MORE ME NOW.

 

[Michael Goff]

No doubt the courts in different jurisdictions around the world will eventually decide on that and not a forum.

So you think Spotify is going to push for legal action? Based on what? Apple asking the Government to do something? Are you so blinded by your hate that you don't see reality?

 

[DrumApple]

Good! I stream 100% of my music through Spotify now, subscribed to the Premium. I'm all for giving artists more for their work.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yeah, screw the musicians, MORE ME NOW.

He also doesn't realize that free is why Spotify is losing money year over year. Or he doesn't care.

 

[ThirteenXIII]

Why the heck is the government involved in music royalties?

Because........ it involves Copyrights. not some big government conspiracy.

 

[smacrumon]

So you think Spotify is going to push for legal action? Based on what? Apple asking the Government to do something? Are you so blinded by your hate that you don't see reality?

Spotify is open to do whatever it wants to test this. Apple has opened up a platform, now either it makes it fully open, non discriminatory and competitive or just close it down entirely. If Apple is concerned about other music services in its platform, it need only look at its own music service and compete with an even greater product. Apple is spitting the dummy and chucking a tantrum in the playpen when it should only be looking at developing and growing itself. There's no reason to be concerned about other music services if Apple creates a best and much loved service of its own.
I'm not directing any hate towards Apple, I own and use Apple products and services, but unlike others, I call out Apple when it is operating in the worst way possible. That's reality.

 

[CarlJ]

What? The music itself isn't worth anything because of the actions of the labels, and now they are fighting over how to sell control over it. I don't want their noise in my home unless I have control over it. Since the music doesn't cost anything, which is a price THEY set, that's what I'm willing to pay.

You are conflating "I was exposed to something without my paying cash for it" with "that item has zero cost". They are not equivalent.

Or you could "literally" fabricate some irrational statement and try and associate it with my response.

Your original statement:

They want to invade my home and pitch their wares without compensating me? How entitled are they?

You claimed someone is invading your home. Note "they" indicating an action taken by someone not you, and "invade" meaning to forcefully enter a place without permission and against the will of the rightful occupants. Now you say you didn't mean it literally. Okay if it isn't someone literally breaking down your door, then what can you mean? Is there a music industry truck parked right in front of your home with giant PA speakers pointed directly at your door blaring music that you didn't approve at you? (That would be pretty clearly a case of them invading your home with music - and this would also be a situation where you should call the police). You're putting the blame on "them", implying the producers or distributors of the music, so clearly you can't have played any part in the invasion, like turning on a radio or a television, or opening an app or website. Because if that were the case, that would be YOU inviting music into your home and then blaming someone else for that music being present, somehow considering yourself the victim. Poor you. You are causing music to be played in your home and then complaining that you don't like that music. Turn off the radio/TV/computer.

It sounds a lot like you are twisting the fact that you heard music through your own actions in your home into "they owe me something", in order to justify your actions. I merely pointed out that you were claiming something completely outrageous, in order to make yourself feel entitled.

 

[gnasher729]

Wrong. Under current licensing, 1M plays equates to $60k-85k, depending on the licensing deal. 6¢-8.5¢ per play.

Absolutely not. See this site: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/b...ot-as-high-as-music-industry-wanted.html?_r=0

The rates _paid to the record companies_ are supposed to increas to 17 cents per 100 plays or 0.17 cents per play. But that's the money going to record companies, not to artists. Artists get a fraction of that.
[doublepost=1468692269][/doublepost]

With over 200 million dollars in losses, Spotify can hardly be seen as a competitor and certainly not a business.. even if it does have twice as many subscribers. It's more of a scam to its investors than anything else.

Almost 1/4 billion buckaroos in the hole. What a joke. Nothing can sustain that kind be of bleeding. They're toast.

Well, it would be a joke if the business model was making money by streaming music. The business model is taking money from investors and paying huge salaries to those who run the company, and I'm sure their business model is very successful.
[doublepost=1468693110][/doublepost]

The cost of hosting these services and the business behind it is not cheap.

What people ignore is that Apple doesn't charge "cost plus some profit" for putting your app on the app store, they charge "percentage of revenue". The rules are are the same for everyong. It's a brilliant deal for anyone who wants to publish a free app, for fun, or for helping their physical business. It's a brilliant deal for anyone who publishes a free app to sell physical goods, like eBay. It's a very good deal for everyone who wants to sell their app in the traditional way, like companies producing games, who get hosting, sales in 100 countries, payment and tax handling in 100 countries, all for a good price.

And it's not a good deal for very few companies who are in some form reselling goods from a third party, and who have to pass a large percentage of their revenue to that third party. Tough. When you develop a business model, the first thing you need to do is to check if it can make you money. If it doesn't make you money, don't start whining, choose a different business model.

 

[Michael Goff]

Spotify is open to do whatever it wants to test this. Apple has opened up a platform, now either it makes it fully open, non discriminatory and competitive or just close it down entirely. If Apple is concerned about other music services in its platform, it need only look at its own music service and compete with an even greater product. Apple is spitting the dummy and chucking a tantrum in the playpen when it should only be looking at developing and growing itself. There's no reason to be concerned about other music services if Apple creates a best and much loved service of its own.
I'm not directing any hate towards Apple, I own and use Apple products and services, but unlike others, I call out Apple when it is operating in the worst way possible. That's reality.

How is it throwing a tantrum by asking for the government to do something? You're making no sense. Also, how is the platform discriminatory?

 

[gnasher729]

Correct, that is not theft. It is however a deeply unethical practice, to force subscription providers to offer the same in-app price (which Apple taxes at 30%, effectively removing their profit margin) as they offer on their website or other sales channels that have nothing to do with Apple.

That's nonsense. Apple doesn't force anyone to set any price for anything. For example, Spotify can set a different price on the App Store and on their own website. Wait... that is actually what they are doing!

They can also sell subscriptions exclusively through their website and not pay Apple a penny. That's what Amazon is doing when you buy eBooks for a Kindle. You can read them on an iPad or an iPhone using a free app, and Apple doesn't get a penny.

 

[farmboy]

Why the heck is the government involved in wages?
.

Check the Preamble.

Why is the State supporting the University of California Berkeley? SAme thing.