Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Apple, Love Taylor

taylorswift.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#171

Post by WorldWideWayne »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #133
japhyr wrote: post #109

I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines: We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

It's the weakest part of her argument though as iPhones have a unit cost whereas digital copies of her music do not. But I think she is very right to refuse to pay for a scheme that is supposed to increase Apple's market share and not hers.

OK, give us iPhones for what it costs Apple to roll them off the factory floor please and thank you! (That's more than 50% off retail.)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#172

Post by Tomte »

ricardobeat wrote: post #138
ehosca wrote: post #51

does Taylor Swift herself have full autonomy over determining how/when her music can be played?

That is a great question that I'm also curious to hear the answer. She seems to be signed with Universal, how come does she have fine-grained control over her publishing rights unlike most other artists? Or are these actually moves by the labels using her to earn sympathy from the public?

Ultra successful acts like Taylor Swift certainly don't just sign some standard contract the record label gives to them, but negotiate every single clause in it, using extremely competent and experienced managers and lawyers.

That's what distinguishes Taylor Swift from 95 percent of acts who maybe negotiate a little thing here and there, but are mostly happy to get signed.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#173

Post by robinson7d »

mmorris wrote: post #48
unfamiliar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app! Honestly, $10 a month to use every app sounds pretty good for me, bad for developers.

It depends on how much uptake you get, doesn't it? For example, I spend less than $10/mo on apps (and for that matter, music too). If that's the case for enough users who get the new deal, this would be a net gain for developers. I think that's why you get developers(/musicians) to agree to it.

It's actually a bit better than that.

You're suggesting a simple view where you look at the average amount people who subscribe to this (e.g. $10/month) service would have otherwise paid, and that if that number is less than $10/month the devs (/musicians) win. This is certainly true.

However, there's the additional benefit that not every user that subscribes will entirely drop their purchasing habits. Perhaps less often, but some subscribers will buy apps (/music) on top of their subscription.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#174

Post by threeseed »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #160
threeseed wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's the fact that Apple is threatening independent artists with removal from iTunes. Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. > iOS users can't download music from the web Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes.

> Wrong. Apple has unequivocally stated that this isn't happening. A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this. > Wrong. You can just add it using iTunes. Did you purposely take my quote out of context to make your answer seem correct? I specifically said that iOS users can't download a song from the web or a 3rd party app and add it to their music library like they can on Andr…

> A couple different independent artists online have stated that Apple told them this.

Well I am far more likely to take the measured, legally considered statement from Apple over a single independent artist's Twitter posts. Apple would be in a for a world of hurt if they deliberately mislead people.

> Did you purposely take my quote out of context

No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It is completely legitimate to use iTunes to add it to your collection. Otherwise third party apps exist which allow you to download from the mobile web. I am not saying it isn't as flexible as Android but it is disingenuous to say it isn't possible.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#175

Post by jws »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #131
jws wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole "pay nothing" idea is strange to see on HN. Apple developed the software, is footing the server, power, bandwidth, and ops bills for three months all for free. The labels are chipping in their content for three months. Sounds like everyone is bringing something to the table. Apple is incurring real costs. The labels, not so much. Three kinds of customers will try the service: People who buy their music: th…

I don't think you understand how music usually works for most independent bands. As I've helped a couple friends put out independent albums, here's the basics. A band will put in a long time creating an album: writing the songs, orchestrating, rehearsing, reworking, etc. Then they pay real money for recording, editing and mastering as well as paying an artist and photographer to create the album art. They're also cre…

I don't think you understand how music usually works…

30 years playing in and recording with independent bands. Dong just fine on understanding up front investments.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#176

Post by Alphasite_ »

issa wrote: post #142

This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible. This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.

There is a counterpoint to this whole thing, apple doesn't have a free tier, which is to the artists benefit.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#177

Post by WorldWideWayne »

hobs wrote: post #165
RexRollman wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with corporations who attempt to legally pay as little taxes as possible. That's what I do. If someone doesn't like it, then get the laws changed.

Yeah, why dont the poor and downtrodden just pay their lobbyists to change the law of the land... what? The corporations have the money and the drive to get the laws changed, who else does?

I was hoping someone would start a popular kickstarter style site for this.

It seems pretty simple to me. If you want your laws changed, pool your money and go lobby the gov't just like every other corporation.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#178

Post by toddmorey » 

  Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will
  be rejected
Interesting that free trials periods are entirely unavailable to developers in the app store but mandatory for musicians.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#179

Post by chvid »

wmeredith wrote: post #143
nemik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/6/13/apples-cash-dilem... it seems like Apple may not actually have the cash to do this, not in the USA at least and it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US to pay the majority US labels/producers/artists. Not that this excuses what they're trying to pull here or anything. By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own…

"it would need to pay taxes on the cash it is holding outside the US" Oh, the horror.

They would not - paying their artists is a deductible business expense.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#180

Post by Fargren »

I really don't like this idea that artists should be compensated for having their music listened to. I find it hurts the consumers, and it will hurt the artists in the long run. Basically, I don't think the concept of intellectual property works. What I believe is that artist should find a way to be compensated for the actual crafting of their work, and for the act of performing (Patreon is a great example of what I'd like to see more of).

Intellectual property wasn't a thing for most of human history. If you performed a song in public, anyone who heard it could write it down and perform it or do whatever they wanted to do with it. If you released something to the public, it belonged to the public, and legally that was that. And art still happened. Great art.

The idea that whoever made something owns it (and I really think it's absurd to own an idea) means that everyone else loses out. And I don't see how that can be good, even for the owner.

Post reply on HN