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

331–340 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#331

Post by gjm11 »

biggy3100 wrote: post #324
striking wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that most of the money goes to the label rather than to the artist? [1][2] Unless you're paying them directly, you're still not paying the artist. Streaming and piracy don't even come close to the drain that labels put on income flow to artists. Artists made just about $23.40 for every $1000 their songs sold for in 2010, according to TechDirt [2]. I wish the world were as you described. But it's n…

Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me. And I am not just talking about music. TV, Movies, etc. It's content as an entire class. All content companies are getting smashed against the backdrop of piracy. I'll do whatever I can to support content creators.

> Techdirt leans pro-piracy

Does that make it OK for artists to get 2.34% of what listeners pay for the music they make? Or does it make TechDirt's figures wrong? If so, how?

> Or were you not paying for anything already, and then came across that info which now justified your position?

I am not striking, but I agree with everything s/he wrote. And, as it happens, I do pay for all the music and video and software I acquire. So it is simply not true that holding the opinions s/he expressed is always a rationalization for not liking to pay for things.

(And: do you actually have any evidence that striking pirates things rather than paying for them? Or do you just assume that anyone who takes a position opposing yours must be a pirate?)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#332

Post by schuylerlarson »

glesica wrote: post #298
clord wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might help prevent crap-tastic apps on the store because it changes the incentive structure. If the subscription is doled out in proportion to time spent in-app, the incentive on developers would be to maximize engagement time, which might be a good thing for users. For paid apps such a scheme would be a problem since it would likely reduce income, but as a way to get money to fund free apps, not a bad idea actual…

> If the subscription is doled out in proportion to time spent in-app And think of all the cool new laborious, overcomplicated, and time-consuming UI designs we could look forward to!

Great just more apps for me to not use... It's not like people won't try to make nicer, simpler interfaces like they already do.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#333

Post by edanm »

tajen wrote: post #326
blankenship wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps Are there? (At least for independent musicians?) From my experience, it seems like a decent comparison—you can make an app or album for $2000 or $200k.

You can sell support for software and usage for an app. There's very few recurrent revenue in music.

Sure there is - live shows.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#334

Post by byuu »

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…

I'm not making any statement on whether it's good or bad, right or wrong, but ...

Software developers aren't immune to piracy's effects, either. Whether we like it or not, we're quickly shifting into a world where art is only viable as a labor of love. Everything being digital means copying is free. Scarcity has gone out the window. Now if only our increased productivity and automations led to lesser and lesser working hours, we'd all have a lot more time for artistic endeavors on the side.

But yes, it's becoming increasingly difficult to sustain yourself solely as an artist. Life isn't fair, unfortunately.

Would the world be better if we had purely gratis art? I don't know ... the production values would certainly be a lot lower. But maybe people doing things solely because they enjoy it, rather than for the paycheck, would result in more passion and creativity; and less cash grabs. Or maybe everything would be awful.

Either way, it seems futile to rail against something none of us can possibly change, and wish for the good old days of $15 CDs with one good song on it, or $200 OS installation CDs, or $800 paint programs.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#335

Post by bdcravens »

biggy3100 wrote: post #316
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…

Culture has shifted and now piracy is not looked at as a real crime, but a passage of rite. These streaming services came around as an alternative to piracy and not paying anything for content anywhere. We're witness the bankrupting of artists over time. And it amazes me that on a forum of content creators, you can see the self-interested individuals rationalizing it as fair. We can argue about the business models al…

> These streaming services came around as an alternative to piracy and not paying anything for content anywhere.

Maybe I'm an edge case, but I bought music until I got a Spotify subscription. Now the only time I buy is when it's not available (for instance, Tech N9ne latest album was on iTunes a week or two before Spotify)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#336

Post by giancarlostoro »

I guess I was the only one who thought this was going to be Taylor Swift complaining that they named a programming language after her (before reading this) and putting a trademark on her last name (or something similarly silly).

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#337

Post by headShrinker »

For anyone suggesting that Taylor is not greedy, most artists don't get the majority of the money from airplay, the record labels do. Apple's move is to cut record labels massive control grip on the market, not to rip off the artist. Taylor Swift is in a very unique positions to have a very lucrative record deal with her label. Most artists don't, that's why you are hearing from her and not others.

It was the same situation with Metallica and Napster. They got the majority of the money from their record sales. Most artists are just interested in the massive distribution these platforms offer, so when a relatively small act shows up in your town you might have heard of them. The live show is were most acts make any money anyway.

Many years ago, I recorded a number of albums with different bands. On average, for every $10 album sold, I would get 10 cents, paid to me after the label recoups costs. When you aren't Taylor Swift, that is the deal most artist are offered through a record label.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#338

Post by walterbell »

gjm11 wrote: post #331
biggy3100 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Techdirt leans pro-piracy, just as torrentfreak does. I'll pay for my content in whichever fashion gets the artist paid the most - makes no difference to me. And I am not just talking about music. TV, Movies, etc. It's content as an entire class. All content companies are getting smashed against the backdrop of piracy. I'll do whatever I can to support content creators.

> Techdirt leans pro-piracy Does that make it OK for artists to get 2.34% of what listeners pay for the music they make? Or does it make TechDirt's figures wrong ? If so, how? > Or were you not paying for anything already, and then came across that info which now justified your position? I am not striking , but I agree with everything s/he wrote. And, as it happens, I do pay for all the music and video and software I…

Is it legal for artists to sell virtual goods directly to fans, or are those rights locked up in record company contracts? That would allow separation of payment from distribution.

TPP/TTIP/RECP leaks suggest the criminalization of non-commercial copyright infringement, where prosecution will be possible even if the copyright holder does not want to prosecute, e.g. fanzines.

Can we develop a payment mechanism which moves funds from audience to artist for virtual goods, with no exchange of music (which can be obtained on any channel), but which provides a non-forgeable "protection from being prosecuted"? This would return control to the artist.

Unbundle the music license payment from music delivery payment.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#339

Post by gress »

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…

Can you explain why that wouldn't be a great deal for app developers? I develop iOS apps, and I'd love it if apple moved to a pay for use model.

I care about a world where the most useful apps are rewarded.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#340

Post by Shivetya »

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…

I am all in her camp on this one.

Most services eat the cost of trial periods in hopes of snaring subscribers and making up the loss. Apple is being dishonest by claiming free trial while passing off the costs to the artists by relying on Apple's name and status so as not to have people question it. In other words, they are spinning the story faster that old 78s

Post reply on HN