Apple trying to stop Free streaming music and getting music removed from YouTube?

[JSt0rm]

It's also just REALITY.

MOST people will never make it big, even if they have the talent etc.

and in the past those people would work in the industry and earn a decent living doing what they love. That ship has sailed though.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And some day I'm sure broadcast television will go the way of the DoDo bird too for similar reasons. We may not like it but money talks.

Money talks, but the consumers are the ones with the money they are after.

In capitalism, it was all based on the simple ideas of competition. This is not competition, it is "Alright, how can we (the competition) work together equally to screw the consumer over by eliminating ways that we compete?" That is not capitalism.

Things like this should not only be illegal but we should give stiff penalties for this type of shit.

 

[JSt0rm]

Money talks, but the consumers are the ones with the money they are after.

In capitalism, it was all based on the simple ideas of competition. This is not competition, it is "Alright, how can we (the competition) work together equally to screw the consumer over by eliminating ways that we compete?" That is not capitalism.

Things like this should not only be illegal but we should give stiff penalties for this type of shit.

The competition is in the quality of the content. Pricing very much changes as you move down the tiers. Did you know that people take the crappiest movies we make and sell them in central america in $1 (or whatever they use) dvd bins? That is capitalism.

Unless you wanted all the top tier entertainment for free or close to it because you think it should cost less?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The competition is in the quality of the content. Pricing very much changes as you move down the tiers. Did you know that people take the crappiest movies we make and sell them in central america in $1 (or whatever they use) dvd bins? That is capitalism.

Unless you wanted all the top tier entertainment for free or close to it because you think it should cost less?

Wut.... I honestly don't understand a single thing you are saying... Trying to say competition is in the quality? How does that apply to 128 mp3's that are the same regardless of how/where you obtain them?

 

[JSt0rm]

Sorry I mean the difference between the new marvel move and something like "the room" - Thats what I meant by quality of content.

The same can be said for music. But obviously not at apple. Amazon has different pricing for different songs/albums.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Endgame capitalism is fucked. It's basically a handful of companies left after buying out competition, and then it continues to shrink unless there is government intervention.

It's not fucked, you have nothing to worry about. Companies will always need consumers and people that will buy things. Without them, there is no company or American economy.

So things will balance.

What you have to worry about is the effect capitalism and consumerism will have on this planet (especially as other countries catch up). We are already seeing effects of that today. Our children and their children will be the ones to REALLY experience it.

 

[Vdubchaos]

and in the past those people would work in the industry and earn a decent living doing what they love. That ship has sailed though.

People that love what they are doing don't do it for money, they are doing it for the love of what they are doing.

Getting rich, or trying to is the biggest mistake most people make.

That's not what life is about......

Usually, those vary people are the ones that can never be happy regardless of how much money they end up making or how rich they get.

 

[JSt0rm]

People that love what they are doing don't do it for money, they are doing it for the love of what they are doing.

Getting rich, or trying to is the biggest mistake most people make.

That's not what life is about......

Usually, those vary people are the ones that can never be happy regardless of how much money they end up making or how rich they get.

^^^ this is so backwards. Im sure you repeat that mantra as you download videogames/movies/tv shows and music.

What you dont understand is that people arent getting rich working in content. They are paying mortgages and raising kids. At least they used to. Before everyone started treating al content as an all you can eat buffet.

You keep talking about people getting rich and that is such a small minority of the people who do creative work its not even worth talking about. Its on the same level as saying everyone wants to be a ceo. Would everyone take that job? sure but everyone isnt gunning for that position.

EVERYONE who works as a professional artist/musician/sound designer came into this for the love of it. 100%. The competition to do real professional level work is so great if you dont love it you wont work. PERIOD.

 

[darkswordsman17]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/appeals-court-upholds-pandoras-victory-over-songwriters/

I'm sure some of you people will be "OMG only 1.8%!!! See how streaming is screwing the artists?!?" Until you learn that they spend ~50% of revenue in paying copyright holders (they've disclosed that before as part of their IPO filing), most of which goes to the labels, who are the ones actually screwing artists. If you're an artist you should be bitching about your label, not streaming sites.

Oh and not only that but the ASCAP is that group that's not been paying royalties to songwriters even though it's owed (that I linked earlier in this thread). Since I'm sure some people don't realize this, ASCAP is not the labels, they are a separate group that are getting royalties from music. There are actually more groups than just the labels and ASCAP as well.

Oh and you know how much ASCAP usually get from normal radio? 1.5% But yet let's act like its just the streaming companies screwing artists.

Spotify claims they send 70% of revenue to rights holders and I know Pandora's has fluctuated (although its generally been north of 50%).

...because most of them are.

Bullshit. Some are, but not most. Also bullshit to your claims that you don't care enough about this, as it's part of your job. Sorta, not with the music industry (unless you changed).

It's hilarious how you used to have no problem with piracy and stuff (I remember you praising your demi god Trent Reznor when he released the uncompressed feeds from his concerts just to tell his label to go fuck itself) and then got a job working for a movie studio and now you just shill their bullshit lines that have been disproven by their own studies pretty consistently (piracy is not the reason the music industry's revenues dropped).

I don't have a problem with them making money, I have a problem with their lies, terrible logic, and their attempts to make the government write laws to give them what they want as well as spend tax payer money to try and widely prosecute such laws.

 

[Ns1]

Well you've touched on 2 very interesting points.

Taking a step back, from the business standpoint I understand that piracy affects revenues which fucks everybody over. So piracy is bad, because piracy is theft. Sorry, but that's how it is.

However, from a consumer standpoint, piracy rocks. The internet makes things which should cost money, free. And free is better than pay, every single fucking time.

Thus, I understand that piracy does in fact cost people money because I can confirm from multiple anecdotal sources that piracy does in fact impact sales. Because once you pirate something, the motivation to pay for it later decreases by a significant amount.

Sure, it may lead to SOME PIRATES spending SOME MONEY on said pirated product later down the line, but take a serious glance at any one of the major piracy sites - you think those pirates will buy that shit later? hell take a look at this very forum, you got peeps that pirate because "fuck the MPAA and their DRM bullshit". Fuck that shit, don't try to pretend you're fucking robin hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. You just want what you want for free because the internet gives it to you for free.

FWIW, I don't pirate music or movies. But that fucking Mayweather fight, fuck it, I aint giving him a penny. I stole that fight, cuz free on the internet > $50 cover at the local bar.

 

[dainthomas]

It sounds like Apple learned nothing from being caught after forming the cartel to control e-book prices and end competition there.

I suspect someone at the DoJ is raising an eyebrow and jotting notes for the future investigation . . . .

This. Sounds like exactly what they were doing before.

 

[BUTCH1]

I don't get this part, hasn't FM radio been around for decades now letting listeners hear songs for free, along with ad's of course. Is the issue that streaming services allow listeners the ability to hear specific artists instead of "whatever's playing"? I use Slacker at work, the free version, you can't even skip a song you don't like unless you join the paid service.

 

[HeXen]

Kudos to Apple. If I would stand to benefit financially then I'd do the same thing. Haters be jealous because they only stand to lose something as apposed to gain. I won't lose anything because I use none of these services.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What kind of authority does Apple have over music anyway? I could see the RIAA doing this, but Apple?

 

[John Connor]

...And the Piratebay suddenly just got bigger. This is why people pirate. There is too much of a good thing out there and companies just want more and more money. Doesn't matter to me much anyway. I haven't bought an album in over eight years as most music today sucks ass and if I like a track I hear on Pandora I buy it on Amazon. But it's nice to see an 80's music video especially the ones I have never seen.

 

[John Connor]

That's open to interpretation in this situation IMHO. What's to stop Universal (or any label) from having one exclusive streaming source?

What if we had one museum for all of the world's art?

 

[John Connor]

Apple does this for musicians, and gets shit for it. Let's face it, the majority of these free services are made ad revenue and isn't giving much to the content creators. Multiple artists have talked about Spotify and how they have received very little compensation for being played millions of times on that service.

Must suck not to have kiss my ass money. After all you need to pay the jetfuel bill.

 

[John Connor]

I would bash any company doing something such as this. There's a fine line between capitalism and pure greed. That is the problem with "america" today, people seem to have forgotten what capitalism really stands for and defend dirty practices in the name of it. Then people also defend it by saying "its within the law". Everything is within the law until it isn't. When it is against the law, they find a loophole. If they can screw over someone else in the name of capitalism, they will. That is not good will, and it isn't something you shouldn't be proud to defend.

This is why there are monopolies, this is why there is a growing gap between executives and the working class. Give an inch take a mile. Sadly, people not only defend these things, they will justify it by actually paying money to them as well.

Defending a society based on lawsuits is just sad. It doesn't make you a better person at all, and makes it pretty hypocritical when many of these companies have done plenty of illegal things in the past to get where they are today. Just because they aren't in jail (since they can afford the lawyers), doesn't make them right.

And that's the thing. Capitalism is based on competition. What Apple is doing goes against that very definition. In fact I would argue doing business over seas, i.e making the crap in China and god knows where else is anti-capitalistic. Capitalism is an American ideal and thus American based companies should use American based workers.

 

[NutBucket]

What if we had one museum for all of the world's art?

As long as all the art is obtained legally what's to stop someone from doing that? It may not be "in the best interest of society" but it's certainly not illegal. Besides, it would save a a hell of a lot of time and money; go to one place to see all the art you could ever want to see.

Look, there's overly idealistic ways of viewing everything. While I do embrace some libertarian ideals, a truly libertarian society would never survive. Same for a purely socialist society, etc.

Oh, and you're right, capitalism is based competition. But if you can eliminate your competition then you stand to make much more money. How much more capitalistic can you get?

 

[John Connor]

Besides, it would save a a hell of a lot of time and money; go to one place to see all the art you could ever want to see.

Except they can charge what ever they wanted.

Oh, and you're right, capitalism is based competition. But if you can eliminate your competition then you stand to make much more money. How much more capitalistic can you get?

Exactly!

It's like the rail roads and electricity. The oil companies and steel.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Oh, and you're right, capitalism is based competition. But if you can eliminate your competition then you stand to make much more money. How much more capitalistic can you get?

Which is why we have anti-trust laws. Completely unfettered capitalism gets us tainted food, polluted water, brown air, and higher prices.

As a society we know from experience that once a company or cartel obtains a monopoly they are likely to abuse that power to inflate profits and shut out new competitors that could threaten their profits and control.

In the US, colluding as a cartel to fix prices is illegal. Apple did that with e-books and will pay once their appeals run out.

In the US, just having monopoly power is not illegal. Abusing that power like Microsoft did during the browser wars is illegal. They managed to avoid major penalties and one effect was the (unfairly) winning IE browser being left to rot for years when MS stopped caring about developing it. They'd crushed Netscape and it took years for new competitors to gain a significant market share.

 

[JimKiler]

How much will Apple's streaming service cost us consumers? I am unsure how reducing subsidized services (ads on youtube and other services) means Apple is going to get more customers for its service.

 

[NutBucket]

Except they can charge what ever they wanted.




Exactly!

It's like the rail roads and electricity. The oil companies and steel.

You could argue there's one key difference. If the art museum charged $1000 per ticket, the number of visitors would likely be small and therefore it could not sustain itself. The market would force a price adjustment.

Oil and steel are different in that they are necessities of life so the market cannot simply adjust and force prices lower. However, it would open the door for a new player in the market (assuming you aren't suggesting there is only oil company and one steel company in the world, etc).

 

[ultimatebob]

most modern phones don't.

Why would they? Streaming services like Pandora are excellent at forcing phone users to upgrade to a more expensive data plan. Verizon and AT&T probably required FM Radio to be disabled for that very reason.

 

[miri]

Apple may be getting what they wanted

http://bgr.com/2015/05/15/apple-beats-music-vs-spotify-free-streaming/