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.
Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Whoops, Taylor. Though I understand the problem of dealing /w unwanted photos, a reg. treaty should be more biased.
When I visited a Björk concert in the 90ies, security grabbed my walkman and opened it so rudely that its case made a cracking noise,. Only because they suspected me to carry a recording device. I was having a heated discussion with the sec. guy whether he would like to pay the price for a new walkman (it was rather high-end), but I doubt I'd 've gotten any refund.
When I visited a Björk concert in the 90ies, security grabbed my walkman and opened it so rudely that its case made a cracking noise,. Only because they suspected me to carry a recording device. I was having a heated discussion with the sec. guy whether he would like to pay the price for a new walkman (it was rather high-end), but I doubt I'd 've gotten any refund.
Im keeping in context, not going off on a tangent about something else. Im not stealing, I'm copying, big difference. Stealing is the loss of the item that can no longer be obtained. Copying is only duplicating what already exists.
Last edited by a moderator:
In legalese it's "copyright infringement".
In colloquial English, it's stealing. You have taken possession of music that you're not legally entitled to own.
"steal v. 1. take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it." - Oxford English Dictionary.
If you don't like the label, either stop stealing or stop crowing about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
There would only be one thing I know.
If content price is so high, and few can afford it, then content producers will have no choice but lowering the price to keep themselves alive.
Everything is related to profit. It's really hard to figure out a great balance which could please a majority of people.
End.
If content price is so high, and few can afford it, then content producers will have no choice but lowering the price to keep themselves alive.
Everything is related to profit. It's really hard to figure out a great balance which could please a majority of people.
End.
I don't see how its greedy asking you to be paid for your work.
Will you work for free, or do free days?
The difference is Taylor Swift apparently feels she should be compensated every time you play her song/s. Never mind her fans as long as she keeps that money rolling in.
What I find funny is the people bashing Metallica when they raised these issues yet Swift is praised as an artist for the people. Laughable!
Under the existing system artists/song writers get paid every-time their song is play, i don't see this as any different to that.. I'm sure Apple will be wanting you to pay for "the service" after the 3 month, following your logic why should i pay every time i use their service?
Why cant i just use the streaming system? Surely apple shouldn't be compensatedevery-time i use the service?
Just like the app store, apple are adding no real value but extracting lots of money for doing next to nothing at other peoples expense.
And yes, all artists be it her or U2 and everyone in-between should be compensated if you are listening to "their" music over a streaming service. If you don't like it - don't subscribe, buy the download or physical media.
Why cant i just use the streaming system? Surely apple shouldn't be compensatedevery-time i use the service?
Just like the app store, apple are adding no real value but extracting lots of money for doing next to nothing at other peoples expense.
And yes, all artists be it her or U2 and everyone in-between should be compensated if you are listening to "their" music over a streaming service. If you don't like it - don't subscribe, buy the download or physical media.
Thanks for informing me how to listen to music. Don't fret. I won't, don't, and never plan to use any streaming service. I prefer to buy my music ONCE.
By your logic Apple just created this service that will run itself. It takes maintenance and updates to keep a service like this working. Completely different. If you want a real comparison you should look at say, a contractor. Do they get a cut every time a house they built sells? No because common sense says that's stupid. Swift had her people write some songs for her. She recorded them. Done! That's where it stops!
It's funny you think the App Store or a streaming service adds no value. I guess when iTunes started it provides no real benefit either...
By your logic Apple just created this service that will run itself. It takes maintenance and updates to keep a service like this working. Completely different. If you want a real comparison you should look at say, a contractor. Do they get a cut every time a house they built sells? No because common sense says that's stupid. Swift had her people write some songs for her. She recorded them. Done! That's where it stops!
It's funny you think the App Store or a streaming service adds no value. I guess when iTunes started it provides no real benefit either...
Actually, it's not. There's a word in colloquial English that means copying. It's COPYING.
Actually, he's made a copy of something he's not legally entitled to own. The original is still sitting there. Theft implies something is missing. I'm amazed to this day that some people are unable to comprehend the difference. If someone copies my report and uses it at their school, I still have my report to turn in at my school even though they're not entitled to have my work. But that's HELLUVA different from them stealing my report and I have NOTHING to turn in at school. See the difference? There is no property missing. You've copied something, not taken it. Get your vocabulary correct or don't bother discussing something.
Clearly, if you haven't TAKEN something (but copied it), it doesn't fit. The intention to not return it doesn't make sense either since nothing is missing to return. Again, it's copying. It's illegal to copy something with a copyright in this country without the copyright holder's permission. That doesn't make it theft. There are different laws and different penalties involved. Piracy is or at least once was technically different as well as it involves SELLING the intellectual property for a profit you do not have the rights to (whether stolen or copied). In other words, you are then making money from someone else's work. Back in the early '80s I believe I remember reading where they were labeling copying only was called "mugging", although this term never came into widespread use and I cannot find a reference to it today as "copying" seemed to fit better (I believe the idea was to give copying a more criminal sounding tone). Copying and selling was called "pirating". Removing copy protection was called "breaking" (protection). Breaking into systems was called "hacking" (and still is). Doing what Steve Jobs did with "blue box" telephone spoofing technology to get free long distance calls and other operator signals (how he supposedly funded Apple's startup) was called "phreaking" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Phreaking). All these are different things. Trying to lump them all into "stealing" really doesn't work except in the minds of people who think anything and everything is black and white (and yet different laws now cover all these acts).
Also copyright law seems to get changed all the time by corporations lobbying to keep their "intellectual property" from becoming public domain as it's supposed to (e.g. Disney). It's never legal to take something from someone's home, but it is legal to copy it after a certain amount of time (another difference). Copyrights also have to be something original. If my neighbor puts up a white picket fence and I think that looks cool so I also put up a white picket fence, some people would have you believe you've committed a crime copying his idea. That's absurd, however as he didn't invent a white picket fence nor does he own any patents on it, etc. Now if I took his picket fence and put it in my yard, THEN I've stolen something.
Please stop using incorrect vocabulary and accusing people of crimes they have not committed.
The correct sentence would be, "If you don't like the label, either stop copying or stop crowing about it." There, was that SO difficult?
Last edited:
So why do you care if she gets paid or not then?
But with your perverted logic, the contractor is actually apple, so to your point why do they get paid every-time for doing nothing? They didn't invest in the projects, they didn't add to its value - they just turned up and got paid for a locked in service (just like app stores).
Itunes was just a player, not even apples idea its a direct rip of soundjam that they then bought/licensed or whatever, go and look at napster 2 years before - the difference is apple agreed a way to stop the piracy and "pay artists for their work".. Isn't this the same argument - getting paid for "their" not apples music?
Final point - do music stations or MTV "get paid" to do the same thing.
But that's HELLUVA different from them stealing my report and I have NOTHING to turn in at school.
Please stop using incorrect vocabulary and accusing people of crimes they have not committed.
The correct sentence would be, "If you don't like the label, either stop copying or stop crowing about it." There, was that SO difficult?
You just ranted about vocabulary while using the word "HELLUVA"
I lol'd!
You're confused! I don't care if she gets paid. She does! She doesn't care about her fans or she'd quit fighting for every penny she feels she's owed and throw her fans a bone. She cares about "indie" artists even less so since they give her nothing. It's just a way she can do this crap without sounded like a greedy b****!
Check out her photo's contracts and tell me if its not hugely hypocritical. According to her if you take a photo of her it can only be used once. Period! If you're found in breach we'll take a guess what happens. Apple shoulda told her to go take a leap in my opinion!
I know what radio stations do. They also provide, until the last 10-20 years, the only way to advertise your music in a real way. Of course they should be compensated. As should Apple. It's a huge benefit to musicians to have Apple promote their stuff. I guarantee without Apple many famous artists today would be total unknowns were it not for them. Big difference between Apple and Radio is Apple is providing a way for ANYONE to become known. Radio is not. THEY decide who gets heard and what's popular. This is proved by the enormous amount of bad creations and no talent pop that exists today.
I still don't get why you think Apple deserves not to be compensated.
I hate to intrude on your conversation, but you're most definitely wrong. All that has to happen it be qualified as theft is that you 'intentionally deprive without colour of right,' the original owner from the legal ownership of the subject in question. This definitely fits into that definition quite easily, and it's not even moderately a stretch.
She's not doing it for her and only her, she has a valid point and is using her profile/position as jack the nobodies wouldn't get any press coverage or response from apple...
Why do "I" think artists should get paid? Because they are the ones who's work people are wanting to hear, or service they are consuming and without them, it simply doesn't work.
Why shouldn't apple get paid? They are the ones "choosing" to give away the "free" for 3 months trail to people. If they don't want to give it away for nothing, don't - they don't have to, but i don't care either way. Apple they are just wanting a free ride at the expense of others in order to make more money. Did they ask artists to give away free downloads at the launch of iTunes?
I have a business venture for you - I want to build a chain of franchise restaurants. For the first three months all the suppliers will provide their food, time and effort for free, after that we will give you 2% of the receipts going forward. Are you in?
Some people would defend apple regardless, they could start harvesting ivory and it would be fine..
Last edited:
Please explain how a digital copy of a song that's already been cut and printed (so to speak) equates with the ongoing running of a dining establishment.
Nothing, the principle is the same - I'm asking you as a supplier and small "independent" restauranteur to fund the startup of the project and not to get paid for 3 months. After 3 months we will be huge and you'll get a share.
BTW you might not get as many people in your traditional restaurant as I'm giving away your best dishes for free... Why eat at your place and pay $9.99 when you can eat at my chain for $0 for the next 3 months !! I'm sure you can afford to fund it, just look long term.
And name one band apple has made big, the internet/youtube are the ones discovering people.
Thats not to say people don't benefit from having their music on iTunes - but do you have to give away your 3 months of revenue? Its risk free for apple with no downsides,
Pete Townshend, The Who's legendary guitarist, made headlines in 2011 when he called iTunes a "digital vampire" that profits from artists. iTunes makes 38% on the sale, where as the artist makes 10%... 38% to do less than nothing.
To put streaming in context, Listeners have to stream an artist’s songs 849,817 times on Rhapsody, 1,546,667 times on last.fm and 4,053,110 times on Spotify respectively to earn a monthly salary equal to minimum wage. Tell me how many small artists will be able to hit those numbers..
BTW you might not get as many people in your traditional restaurant as I'm giving away your best dishes for free... Why eat at your place and pay $9.99 when you can eat at my chain for $0 for the next 3 months !! I'm sure you can afford to fund it, just look long term.
And name one band apple has made big, the internet/youtube are the ones discovering people.
Thats not to say people don't benefit from having their music on iTunes - but do you have to give away your 3 months of revenue? Its risk free for apple with no downsides,
Pete Townshend, The Who's legendary guitarist, made headlines in 2011 when he called iTunes a "digital vampire" that profits from artists. iTunes makes 38% on the sale, where as the artist makes 10%... 38% to do less than nothing.
To put streaming in context, Listeners have to stream an artist’s songs 849,817 times on Rhapsody, 1,546,667 times on last.fm and 4,053,110 times on Spotify respectively to earn a monthly salary equal to minimum wage. Tell me how many small artists will be able to hit those numbers..
Last edited:
seriously. a better analogy would be that that guy has thousands of stablished restaurants around the world to which i provide my recipes for the menus. he has to run said restaurants, pay for all operation costs, real state, workers etc and i get nothing for 3 months. after 3 months of exposure around the world to markets i could never had imagine expanding to on my own i get a cut for every order off my menu.
If it's so bad then why are these Artists signing on to these streaming services? Just don't do it if it's not making them any money. Simple!
I realize the big names have relied on the basically ONE radio conglomerate in the U.S. to push their music (crap) on the world. Something which would never be available to an indie band EVER! At least Apples plan will allow for literally anyone with a computer to be able to have a song available to the world.
I can think of a few no name musicians who are now popular due an iPod commercial or two and quoting Pete Townsend doesn't mean much to me. Great musician but....
If mr Townsend has so much issue with iTunes he should take it up with his record label and the radio stations they're in cahoots with. Not Apple! Apple helped make music easier to reach for people and at a decent cost. People like Townsend and Swift are incredibly rich and when they cry foul as if they just care about the little indie musician I see it as BS! If they really cared they'd be screaming at the labels and clear channel/iheartmedia and their counterparts around the world not at Apple et al!
Most people don't bother drawing technical legal distinctions during everyday discussions.
Most people do indeed prefer to simplify things. As in: copyright infringement is either right or wrong, content is either rightfully yours or it's not, it's either bought and paid for (whether purchased or rented), or it's - colloquially - "stolen".
The UK trade association that works to combat IP infringement calls itself The "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (FACT).
No more essays, thanks.