Well Taylor is #1 selling records in the USA right now. When Metallica raised this issue against napster they just sucked! S&M and before that load and reload lol The hate was on their side...
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
Well Taylor is #1 selling records in the USA right now. When Metallica raised this issue against napster they just sucked! S&M and before that load and reload lol The hate was on their side...
Given your spelling of "colour" and the odd sounding law, I can only assume you are from the UK. Maybe your laws define copying as "theft" despite the obvious tie to all prior definitions of the past several thousand years but here in the US it's a "violation of copyright law" and if the media in question is old enough, it's not even that (i.e. you can do anything you damn well please with public domain material here). Legally, speaking, the courts in the USA make the distinction as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22 -- Full University reference Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-521-72812-6)
Copyrights expire and become public domain (here at least). Stealing never expires. The courts ruled here there are exceptions to copyrights (fair uses such as time-shifting and quoting for reviews, etc. otherwise I could claim you 'stole' my writing by quoting my message. Perhaps you did in your country?
Copyright laws were originally enacted specifically so owner of said idea (most typically books back then) can profit off their ideas for a fair amount of time before it becomes public domain (as all classical works are, for example). There have been companies lobbying to extend copyrights (Disney did successfully to keep its early cartoon movies from becoming public domain) and many want them to last forever since corporations never die, but this defeats the entire spirit of the law that was meant to only benefit the original holder and perhaps his immediately family, not stockholders for the next several thousand years that had NOTHING to do with its creation. Many believe the type of media and shelf life should be considered as well in the modern age as things like old arcade/video games would disintegrate on their motherboards before their copyrights expired (hence preservation projects like MAME). Stealing physical objects never "expires" and so again, literally equating the two makes no sense except to those that stand to benefit from such things (e.g. Disney).
I hardly find it technical. To me, it's more akin to the difference between a speeding ticket and causing an accident while driving drunk. Both are illegal but are hardly the same thing. Arguments for losses via copyrights are always predicated on the idea that said person would have bought said item if they couldn't have copied it. This is obviously not true as people will watch/listen to things they can get for free (e.g. network TV) that they would never buy in a million years (e.g. Dancing with the stars). Perhaps in your backwards country they are the same thing, but then we threw all your tea into Boston Harbor for reason.
(yeah that was illegal too yet we celebrate it here quite joyously).
If what you were saying were true then the punishment for speeding, stealing and murdering would all be the same thing since they're all "wrong".
Honestly, would you send someone to jail for videotaping an episode of the A-Team off broadcast TV the same as someone who stole a television set from a Walmart? Really??? That was legal to do in the U.S. by the way (a fair use) as ruled by the courts. Oddly, they want to tell us it's not the same with digital as analog despite MP3/AAC being lossy by nature (i.e. it makes no sense logically speaking). What about fast-forwarding through commercials on a DVR device? The program is paid for by advertising. Shouldn't you be FORCED to watch it for that reason? Shouldn't ad blockers on browsers be illegal too for the same reason? In a democracy, how many would agree with that? Where do the people's rights for public domain, government services and entitlement programs begin and capitalism's right to make money end? It's nowhere near as simple as people like you would like it to be since "owning an idea" is a relatively modern and somewhat novel concept at best. You couldn't read, write or wash your hands if you didn't copy that behavior from someone else. Humans copy everything they do by nature. It's called learning. You may think it's an obvious line, but that means you haven't really thought about it. That's why I buy music and movies not because I agree with copyright law, but because I believe in supporting artists. And no I don't feel guilty about skipping endless repetitive insurance commercials on my DVR....
And notice that I fully supported artists getting paid royalties during the free trial period from day one here. Again, that's because I feel artists should be supported (so they keep making art). On the other hand, I don't think they should be able to tell you that you can't make a copy onto a hard drive, USB flash drive or iPod for personal use. There should always be FAIR USE rules to all copyright laws and that's because there needs to be a balance between the consumer and the merchant in all things. Whirlpool doesn't tell me what I can and cannot do with ice cubes made with their refrigerator I bought nor should they be able to, IMO. As long as I'm not manufacturing "copies" of their fridge and selling those copies, that should be the end of it, comparatively speaking.
No more replies, then, thanks.
Thats the "altered" version. Legalese is not true Common Law. Its not stealing and as its only copying what already exists. The original song is not removed from the public so it can not be accessed. How can I return a music file?
lol. That's referring to physical products, not music. If someone steals my bike - that bike is physically gone. If I copy the original bike I have two bikes. Comprehend? Learn: Thats the "altered" version. Legalese is not true Common Law. Its not stealing and as its only copying what already exists. The original song is not removed from the public so it can not be accessed. How can I return a music file?- Copying is not theft and never has been or will be.
So what would happen if I copied your song and passed it as my own and made a ton of money from doing so?
I don't make songs and no point using reverse psychology. We all have the right to copy - its inherent. Read: http://questioncopyright.org/promise.
There's a big difference between copying something for personal use (particularly if that means copying it from a CD onto a flash drive for the car or an iPod or whatever suits your fancy or even playing the album for a friend visiting, etc.) and copying something and then SELLING it ("piracy") and/or passing it off as your own work (plagiarism and/or fraud).
When I said things are more complicated than just black and white, right and wrong consider this example. If I borrow a DVD or Blu-Ray from my local library and watch it, it's legal to do so. If I download the same movie and watch it and then delete it, it's illegal (I've "copied" it by downloading it without permission). YET, from a functional perspective, the end result is 100% IDENTICAL. I've watched the movie without buying or renting it. You can talk about taxes for libraries and other details (I'm paying those taxes regardless of whether I use the library so it's pretty much moot functionally), but the net result is still the same thing. I watched the movie without buying or renting it. I "borrowed" it long enough to watch it from the library or downloaded it long enough to watch it from the Internet. It's the same movie and likely the same experience (let's say they are digitally identical). Now to take some people's perspective on here, I should go to jail or be fined for downloading and watching and then deleting it, but not for watching it for free from the library. YET weirder still, many libraries are now going ONLINE and you can "check out" a movie online and download it (the only difference being that that "virtual copy" is not available again until it "expires" on my computer (typically they expire on their own; you don't "return" it since there's nothing to return as it's a COPY and not an actual borrowed medium). Thus, once again, same thing, one legal and one not legal. Do you see what I'm getting at yet? The laws are outdated and not designed for the digital age.
The answer is simple. Make the things affordable and people will buy/rent/stream them. Most people probably want to do the right thing, but when the right thing is "ridiculous" in this day and age, people tend to ignore the laws (try and find someone who never copied a video tape, a cassette tape, a record or recorded songs off the radio rather than buy the album. We even had a "tax" on blank "Audio" CD-Rs to compensate the record industry for copying losses, but that assumed you were guilty before you even did anything with them and so you were pretty much expected to copy with those blanks else you shouldn't be "fined" for something you didn't do ahead of time. You saw FBI warnings on every commercial VHS tape ever made. How many people were ever actually fined? My 4th grade teacher would have been fined. He even joked about seeing his picture on that warning some day. Movies used to cost $80 (or more) for a crappy VHS tape when they first came out. This was to encourage RENTALS. So screw the consumer but pad Blockbuster? The laws are always skewed for big business and that's because the lawmakers are bribed (ahem "lobbied") by them and ignore the people they are supposed to represent. Then they convince people you're a "thief" for recording a TV Show and not erasing it. Are you allowed to "remember" it in your mind? Isn't that watching it again? Maybe you should pay again every time you think about it! I buy a license to watch Star Wars, not the movie itself yet they keep re-selling me "Star Wars" over and over and over again (I have two sets of Laserdiscs, DVDs and digital versions here). So it's a "license" to only watch that "copy" and if that copy gets wiped out, too bad....(always in their favor).
The law can get absurd for the reasons outlined above. Morally, it's simple. Support artists (music, movies, tv, paintings, whatever) so they keep making art. Make something too onerous and people ignore it (e.g. not copies for the car) and it's hard to blame them. Laws should be ethical and reasonable, not designed to screw everyone over for the benefit of the top 1%. Of course, people's behavior should also be ethical and reasonable, but good luck on both fronts.
I'm actually a bit confused how people seem to only/mostly see one side of this story. Whilst I perfectly agree that indies deserve recognition, and of course income, for doing great work, Apple isn't telling them they HAVE to have their songs on Apple Music. They're saying "We've made a service. We think we can both make money. If you want to be on our service, here's the deal. We give the customer (none of us earn anything. We aren't stealing from you, just collaborating on giving) music for three months to get them hooked on your songs, and then we earn from subscriptions after that". If they don't agree to the terms,, be on Spotify, Pandora, etc.
You make it sound like Apple is the only source of income for represented musicians. Tell you what. If I was making good money off my producst through multiple various means and a high profile company wanted to essentially advertise their service using mine for a few months I think I'd take that investment.
It's incredibly naive to think this has anything to do with Taylor swifts bank account or some indie artists chances at putting bread on the table. It's all about the few huge record labels trying to keep their stranglehold on how we consume their products.
So call it ignorance if it makes you feel smart but it least it's not narrow minded.
It's incredibly naive to think this has anything to do with Taylor swifts bank account or some indie artists chances at putting bread on the table. It's all about the few huge record labels trying to keep their stranglehold on how we consume their products.
So call it ignorance if it makes you feel smart but it least it's not narrow minded.
You don't seem to comprehend, you won't get paid anything for 3 months and people are not going to buy your products when they can be consumed FREE from another source. The independents are "not" making in the most good money thats the point she was making. Yes she and a select few are making money which is why SHE made the stand. Apple would simply ignore the artists not making money if they were to say anything - lets be very clear on that.
Its very simple economic, can you afford to simply not have any income for the next 3 months and fund a multination companies start-up venture?
I'm also pretty sure if this was Microsoft doing this people would be up in arms calling them names.
Its very simple economic, can you afford to simply not have any income for the next 3 months and fund a multination companies start-up venture?
I'm also pretty sure if this was Microsoft doing this people would be up in arms calling them names.
Last edited:
The important thing here is that Mrs. Swift gets more money because, well, ya know, times are tough.
Really though, it's sooooooo hard to buy into this "it's for the little guy" argument. It tugs the right emotional strings and all that but Swift is concerned only with herself. Let's not be gullible and stupid.
Really though, it's sooooooo hard to buy into this "it's for the little guy" argument. It tugs the right emotional strings and all that but Swift is concerned only with herself. Let's not be gullible and stupid.
But Apple Music isn't their employer. It's a distributer of their product. There are other distributers that don't have the same terms. If I make a product, and Wallmart don't want to pay what I want for it, I ask another store.
Yeah. That ensuing she made is brill. Wonder when she makes more.
I don't care what MS does. I'm not defending Apple. I'm pointing out that the economics of this don't add up. What part about Apple not being the only source of income for musicians do you not get? And your idea that no one buys music they can hear free isn't true. If you're a musician that is only trying to sell your music through Apple you're a moron. You can't blame Apple for that.
Thats the "altered" version. Legalese is not true Common Law. Its not stealing and as its only copying what already exists. The original song is not removed from the public so it can not be accessed. How can I return a music file?- Copying is not theft and never has been or will be.
You're right. Theft refers (mostly) to physical things. So let's pretend you have made a brilliant painting that has been valued at 5 billion dollars. You make a few copies if it, which lowers the value of each copy to 2 billion dollars. You sell them. I get one of the copies, and I copy the **** out of it, and make the copies freely available for everyone. Now your paintings, including all the unsold ones you have, are worth literally nothing. Now let's pretend the paintings were worth 1$, and you'd only sold 10 before I pulled my trick. Did I still not do anything wrong, by making what you had worked had on available for free, without compensating you?
Skoal l'll put this in little sentences for you...
People can get their work for free for the first 3 month, lets me say that again, free, once more free.
If people can get it for free, they're not going to pay for it too else where.
That means for 3 months the artist won't get paid, that means those at the bottom will lose their homes, can't pay the rent, can't eat, can't do anything.. That's 3 months of money thats NEVER comes back - You read the number of airplays an artist needs didn't you? There is no PROMISE of increased revenues, the reality is all that will happen is a rebalancing of users between the various online services.
You are defending apple it was a stupid bullyboy tactic; but given even the idiots at apple have seen sense, you seem to be the only one left on the planet that's not got the economics of what this would have meant...
I dont know what you do for a living, but let us know, I'm sure between people on the forum we can find 3 months worth of work for you (btw were not paying) - think of the upside, you could get more money in the future.
People can get their work for free for the first 3 month, lets me say that again, free, once more free.
If people can get it for free, they're not going to pay for it too else where.
That means for 3 months the artist won't get paid, that means those at the bottom will lose their homes, can't pay the rent, can't eat, can't do anything.. That's 3 months of money thats NEVER comes back - You read the number of airplays an artist needs didn't you? There is no PROMISE of increased revenues, the reality is all that will happen is a rebalancing of users between the various online services.
You are defending apple it was a stupid bullyboy tactic; but given even the idiots at apple have seen sense, you seem to be the only one left on the planet that's not got the economics of what this would have meant...
I dont know what you do for a living, but let us know, I'm sure between people on the forum we can find 3 months worth of work for you (btw were not paying) - think of the upside, you could get more money in the future.
Last edited:
Again, what part about Apple not being the only source of income for musicians can you not comprehend? Think outside the box! This isn't a job where you click in! If people "at the bottom" are relying on Apple to pay their mortgages they need to rethink their career choices. Or at least their choice in record labels and managers.
I'll add, this is a streaming service that will allow virtually anyone to sell their songs ie. Little GarageBand that isn't represented may actually get a chance to grow an audience. They will then be able to gig, and it grows from there. I guarantee there are thousands of kids that would jump at the chance.
This is t about paying mortgages. That's simple minded. It's about the big 3 record labels trying to hold on to the power they've always had. This isn't radio and it scares the hell out of them.
Apple didn't change course because of some "oh ya were wrong duh". They did so due to media pressure and bad press. They win either way. Hell they just got Swift to agree to stream exclusively lol!
Now that you've devolved into personal insults I'll add... I do just fine. I dont need a job from you or anyone else. I have this ability to look at money and think of ways to make more with it. Try it. You'll be surprised what can happen.
Last edited:
How can they grow ANYTHING when its free elsewhere?
If the artists "wanted" to give it away for free they'd simply upload it to youtube and do it themselves, they don't need anyone to do that for them and they still have control over their work to boot.
Would this promotion work like app store? Where you can't find anything but what apple wants to push?
If it was about moving the balance of power, apple wouldn't be using a model that is based on a price point that includes the old world things around distribute music. Why can you buy music in CD form from amazon cheaper than iTunes? They don't have any distribution costs after all. Why can you buy films from Amazon cheaper than iTunes - i provided the breakdown of where the money goes. 10% is the artists share, 40% is apples. If they want to promote artists why not split it down the middle and go 25% each? that would be moving the balance of power you speak about.
This mythical box you talk about, you are stuck in it and its closed. They don't have a record deal, thats why they are "independent" so they cant just jump to another label..
If public opinion deems its wrong, which they did, then it was wrong.
Was it the media pressure, sure it was - but you have to a have voice to rally around.
And there are no personal insult, i didn't call you anything but - was i scornful? Perhaps.
This conversation is going in a circle and apple HAVE backed down so it somewhat mute!
If the artists "wanted" to give it away for free they'd simply upload it to youtube and do it themselves, they don't need anyone to do that for them and they still have control over their work to boot.
Would this promotion work like app store? Where you can't find anything but what apple wants to push?
If it was about moving the balance of power, apple wouldn't be using a model that is based on a price point that includes the old world things around distribute music. Why can you buy music in CD form from amazon cheaper than iTunes? They don't have any distribution costs after all. Why can you buy films from Amazon cheaper than iTunes - i provided the breakdown of where the money goes. 10% is the artists share, 40% is apples. If they want to promote artists why not split it down the middle and go 25% each? that would be moving the balance of power you speak about.
This mythical box you talk about, you are stuck in it and its closed. They don't have a record deal, thats why they are "independent" so they cant just jump to another label..
If public opinion deems its wrong, which they did, then it was wrong.
Was it the media pressure, sure it was - but you have to a have voice to rally around.
And there are no personal insult, i didn't call you anything but - was i scornful? Perhaps.
This conversation is going in a circle and apple HAVE backed down so it somewhat mute!
First of all, no "copy" (print) of a painting is EVER going to be worth even 1/10 of 1% of the original and that's because they're not painted by the original artist. They're machined (whether photo prints or canvas).
Let's try this again. A painting's value is based on it being the original. There are thousands of fakes Mona Lisa paintings out there, some painted by real people. But they're worth very little. Only the original is priceless. But since it's public domain (the image), it can be copied, imitated, cloned, whatever to your heart's content. But only the one painted by Da Vinci himself is worth the big money.
As I mentioned in my own response above, copying things for personal use at home (especially things you bought and want copies for the car, etc.) is a far cry from copying something and SELLING it (plagiarism and/or fraud in the case of original works of art as being the original made/painted by the original artist or pretending to be the original artist). In the case of music, software, etc. (digital stuff being copied and then sold) it's typically called "piracy". If you're not selling it, "piracy" really doesn't fit (it's possibly a copyright violation depending on the exact use), but the news/media likes to throw the word piracy around for everything these days.
Your math is great, 10+1 is 42..... no one mentioned her, or her financial situation.
She was simply a high profile voice as those independent artists at the bottom wouldn't have received the time of day from apple.
Well done TS, and great back down apple.