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

301–310 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#301

Post by jws »

luma wrote: post #115
jws wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labels costs are already sunk. The direct costs of the trial are all apple's.

So creating software is hard and should be compensated, while creating music is easy and it should be given away for free. By your logic everyone should support The Pirate Bay because they developed the software and they foot the server bill to distribute content.

Hmm, this comment needed more text, but I was about to step on stage using my phone, sorry…

In the creation of Apple Music, Apple didn't not require any musician to create more music. Apple did have to develop their delivery system.

Apple does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music. But if a music owner does want to be included, then when Apple isn't paid, the music owner doesn't get paid. When Apple isn't paid the music owner does not have to chip in on the operations costs, that's nice of them.

Stated a different way, during the promotional period which the music owner agrees to, to promote their music in what they believe will be a profit making venture, Apple will pay all of the distribution costs out of their own pockets.

About Pirate Bay (which I didn't really want to comment on, but HN won't let me edit the grand parent) The content owner's, by and large, did not agree to put their material on Pirate Bay. If the content owner's did, I'd use Pirate Bay all the time and pay for the privilege. Instead I have to wander the balkanized world of video content looking for which of the four services I subscribe to might have the video I want to watch. It is a terrible solution and should burn in fire, but we are stuck there for now.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#302

Post by adventured »

URSpider94 wrote: post #282
zymhan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they have to pay taxes all of the overseas earnings if they use just some of it? I figured they only paid tax on what they actually bring back here.

No, just what they repatriate. But they already have $22 BILLION in cash in the U.S., and they can borrow more for far less than their income tax rate, so why incur even a little tax?

The only reason for them to be concerned, is they've accumulated a vast amount of debt in a very short amount of time, all to put off dealing with the cash / tax problem.

That debt starts to add up, even when you're paying record low interest rates on it. Right now they're losing a billion a year just in interest on their debt, that's up from nothing three years ago. At the rate they're taking on debt, they'll be losing two billion dollars per year to interest within another two years. That starts to become a lot of money to be pissing away just on interest, all to avoid taxes. Over time it'll become a net larger sum than they would have paid in taxes on the cash.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#303

Post by Fargren »

themartorana wrote: post #196
Fargren wrote: post #180

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'…

But for most of human history, there weren't instant/digital cameras, digital recording devices, TVs, monitors, internets, instant and basically free copies, and so on. You want to see the latest Monet painting? There's only one way to do that. Want to make a very close copy of it? It's likely you're a bit of a genius yourself. It's not that I think this model is perfect, but consuming art was difficult at best, expe…

I agree that the model we had is probably not a perfect fit for our era. But the one we have wasn't designed for this time either. It is a combination of historical accident and strong lobbying for private interests that got us to this point. And while we do get extremely cheap and ubiquitous consumability, which is a good thing, we also get highly restricted redistribution, derivation and consumption.

What I believe is that we should have a system where everyone is free to distribute any form of media they have access to, and of any modifications he can make of that. Obviously, this would require a different form of compensation than the one we are using; if anyone can distribute, then charging for distribution is not a great idea. We should instead pay the produces for the act of producing (and the performers for the act of performing). This is not some crazy scheme by the way: this is exactly how we pay employees for software. We agree on a price for your skill, and pay you for as long as you excersize that skill.

Patreon and Kickstarter also work with similar models, compensating for the creative act before it is done (or directly afterwards).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#304

Post by StringyBob »

intrasight wrote: post #297

Make great music. Give it away for free (or streaming, which is near the same). Charge a lot for live concerts. I'd just assumed that musicians would have figured that out by now.

The 'free' bit has already happened for a lot of artists (income is gone). The second part 'charge a lot for live music' is happening - those who can are try to compensate (i.e. make a living). Having just paid over $100 for a concert ticket, I don't think live music becoming only the preserve of the rich helps.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#305

Post by TillE »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #185
threeseed wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Considering the way Apple lied... ehem ... misspoke? misled people?... about ebooks, lying about music isn't that far fetched. > No. I am an iOS user and half my music collection is from the web. It is c…

They don't even have to be lying. Apple is a huge company, and it's entirely possibly that its representatives may have been making threats that were not, ah, officially authorized.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#306

Post by Mahn »

zwily wrote: post #290
w4 wrote: post #186

For everyone suggesting that artists are simply being greedy or unreasonable in expecting Apple to pay them during the trial period, I'd encourage you to consider the hypothetical I posted in the last thread about Apple Music's 3 month trial. It might help contextualize the artists' and labels' complaints: > Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will…

Pay-per-usage of apps (similar to streaming music) might be really interesting. Of course, games already kind of do that via IAP and it absolutely sucks, so who knows.

The way things are going, with a couple mobile games doing billions, and hundreds of thousands of others doing next to nothing, non-IAP pay-per-usage in app stores may well come sooner than most people expect.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#307

Post by nmrm2 »

StringyBob wrote: post #271
imteamcoltra wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard because music you can actually track how many people are listening to what songs and how much of the song they listen to and compensate accordingly. If they were able to track how often a person used an app then I don't think that would be too bad except for extremely niche apps which are usually enterprise already. I would take a smaller payment if I got paid $0.01 for three minutes my app was open on a ph…

I don't think current subscription systems make the best use of this data. I personally believe that royalties should be calculated per individual paying user account rather than aggregated over total playbacks in the service. In other words, If I only listen to 'my favorite niche band' in a month, but don't use the service much, it's unlikely that they will see anything near the full possible share of royalties from…

This is one reason I pretty much just leave classical music on in the background 16/7. I'm absolutely not abusing the service -- I'm paying a subscription for exactly the right to do this. And, it helps the artists who get most shafted by the aggregate play count payout model.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#308

Post by Keyframe »

It makes sense. Apple is launching a service for their own profit motives. Service is new and has no traction, they need a marketing move to build traction. One of those moves is a free trial with other people's IP. Those people will, presumably, profit as well from the service once it gains traction. In the meantime, Apple - the initiator and owner of said service, asks other people to foot the marketing bill for their own business. Which wouldn't be an odd proposition if

a) it was a service first of its kind in a non-crowded space

and

b) some types of IP in this sector is time sensitive (airplay on pop hits is measured in months after launch and drops off, like games)

c) apple is loaded with cash

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#309

Post by dizzyviolet »

I respect this woman more every time I hear about her in the news. I'm glad to see a huge player try to stand up for others like that. It's remarkable considering she clearly understands she could end up helping someone that takes a sale from her.
Post reply on HN