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

381–390 of 534 posts

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#381

Post by IBM »

themartorana wrote: post #356
IBM wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what difference it makes that they don't have labels? The deal is the same for everyone, you get higher royalties overall in exchange for the 3 month free trial.

Of course large labels can handle this. Small artists that rely on month-to-month revenue to live suffer when they have to give their product away for 3 months. If you give away swag at an event to promote your business with your logo, I bet you still paid the manufacturers and printers and shippers and... And this isn't a "new" business opportunity. It's very likely many subscribers will come Spotify or Rdio or othe…

They aren't giving away their product, they're getting higher royalties overall. Your argument makes sense only if every single artist is going to be releasing a new album during this 3 month trial period, and that everyone that subscribes to Apple Music does so when it launches. That's not going to happen and musicians will release music long after the trial period is over, for which they'll be earning a higher royalty.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#382

Post by intrasight »

StringyBob wrote: post #304
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.

I expect that we will soon see some "hybrid" approaches. VR/AR tech comes to mind. I would have liked to have seen the Stones last night, but $200-400 for a ticket was more than I could justify. But if I could watch in comfort from my home holodeck, then I'd certainly have been willing to pay $50.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#383

Post by mike_hearn »

S4M wrote: post #367
simonh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own money. It's not about avoiding paying any US taxes, it's about avoiding paying US taxes on earnings abroad. This is why so many Americans living abroad are giving up their US citizenship. I'm a Brit living in London and I know several American born friends that have become British citizens to avoid paying both UK and US taxes on their earnin…

> On what possible basis could anyone consider that appropriate? Not a US citizen here, but I think the reason is that a US citizen has more privileges than someone else: it's easier to travel and get a work permit abroad, if something goes badly they are still under protection of the US government, etc. This is due to the fact that USA are the most powerful country on Earth, and one of the reasons for that is its mi…

> I think the reason is that a US citizen has more privileges than someone else

Not the case. I have read that the most powerful passport in the world (as in, getting into countries visa free) is the British passport.

Additionally Americans, unlike citizens of other countries, get no protection from their host government. If they get evacuated from a disaster zone they get charged for the costs. And as everything the US Gov does is horrendously price inflated, there are cases of people getting "rescued" and then wishing they'd been left behind after being served with massive bills.

The way the USA taxes citizens abroad is indefensible. There's literally not one single defence for it.

(btw: there are two different Mike Hearn's posting in this thread! I am the other one)

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#384

Post by regularfry »

mike_hearn wrote: post #373
icebraining wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy was never look at as a real crime. The "Home Taping Is Killing Music" campaign wouldn't have been launched if piracy was generally equated with a crime in society. To me the end result would be simple: The average user would have to pay more for their content People aren't exactly burning the money they would have otherwise spend on such content; they aren't going to stop paying their rent because they have le…

Of course "not paying for things" is an option. Nobody has a human right to Taylor Swift's music. If you can't buy it then just go listen to the radio, or use Spotify's ad supported service, or do something else. I pay for all the movies I watch via iTunes. I never pirate movies. Most of the music I listen to is internet radio (i.e. it is free but with the artists permission). Some of my friends consider me odd, and…

To play devil's advocate, no artist has a human right to payment for a digital copy - or any copy, for that matter - either. It's a negotiated arrangement, not a fundamental truth.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#385

Post by philwelch »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #117
briandear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending apple for not paying artists, but I will defend their 'weaseling' out of US taxes. U.S. Corporate taxes are among the highest in the world and until Washington starts lowering their confiscatory tax rates, I would encourage all businesses to avoid repatriating earnings. A 10% tax rate is high enough.

How come 10% is high enough for corporations but I pay a lot more than that in income taxes. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Corporations are just a straw man. Any profit that a corporation makes is either held as cash, reinvested by the corporation, or returned to the owners of the corporation (i.e. shareholders) as dividends. The profit that's held and reinvested is intended to generate even more profits in the future, which means that eventually, all of a company's profit makes its way back to individual shareholders. Those shareholders, in turn, pay income tax on those dividends. So a corporation's profit is already taxed at the point where it performs the intended purpose of corporate profits--to provide income to the shareholders.

Taxing corporate profits directly at all only accomplishes the following things:

* The profits that are redistributed to shareholders end up being double-taxed; the corporation pays tax on them, and then distributes them to shareholders who pay income tax on them.

* The profits that are reinvested end up being taxed, which reduces the amount that the corporation can reinvest. This directly reduces economic activity, since reinvestment often manifests itself in things like hiring and construction; in other words, increased economic activity. In practice, it might be possible to avoid taxes on these reinvestment activities by accounting for them as expenses and saying, "I guess we didn't make any profit this quarter".

* The profits that are held as cash are taxed, and this isn't actually as big of a deal unless the company is building up a massive stockpile to reinvest later, but in this case it would be fairer to just tax a corporation's cash holdings directly. This would also incentivize corporations to either reinvest their profits or distribute them as dividends, either of which is better for the economy as a whole.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#386

Post by icebraining »

mike_hearn wrote: post #373
icebraining wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy was never look at as a real crime. The "Home Taping Is Killing Music" campaign wouldn't have been launched if piracy was generally equated with a crime in society. To me the end result would be simple: The average user would have to pay more for their content People aren't exactly burning the money they would have otherwise spend on such content; they aren't going to stop paying their rent because they have le…

Of course "not paying for things" is an option. Nobody has a human right to Taylor Swift's music. If you can't buy it then just go listen to the radio, or use Spotify's ad supported service, or do something else. I pay for all the movies I watch via iTunes. I never pirate movies. Most of the music I listen to is internet radio (i.e. it is free but with the artists permission). Some of my friends consider me odd, and…

Of course "not paying for things" is an option

That's not what I said, please read again.

Nobody has a human right to Taylor Swift's music. If you can't buy it then just go listen to the radio, or use Spotify's ad supported service, or do something else.

Sure. That's why I said it might be more just and moral. Please read my post attentively before replying.

But how many artists has your self-sacrifice of not pirating actually helped, compared to someone who spends the same amount but also pirates?

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#387

Post by mike_hearn »

michaelt wrote: post #311
simonh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By trying to weasel out of paying any US taxes, they can't spend their own money. It's not about avoiding paying any US taxes, it's about avoiding paying US taxes on earnings abroad. This is why so many Americans living abroad are giving up their US citizenship. I'm a Brit living in London and I know several American born friends that have become British citizens to avoid paying both UK and US taxes on their earnin…

The US Government's attitude to earnings abroad is IMHO utterly reprehensible. I'm also a Brit and I disagree - at least in the case of multinational companies like Apple. If you have a lower tax rate for profits from abroad, the American operation can "license intellectual property" from shell companies in tax havens, then the American operation makes no profits (and hence pays no tax) while the tax haven shell comp…

It's normal that companies can choose where to book revenue by performing various forms of cost shifting. The entire EU system of corporate taxation is based on that principle (tax is paid where your HQ is registered). Global tax treaties, ditto. It's the USA that is weird and exceptional in this case.

So the British approach is not to "ignore tax dodging". It's to theoretically apply the same system it's always used, along with everywhere else, whilst simultaneously trying to appease populist anger over spending cuts by branding various foreign companies as socially irresponsible, although (a) there is no chance of this making any different to austerity and (b) those companies were only following rules that were considered uncontroversial not so long ago.

It's kind of a dumb strategy.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#388

Post by obstinate »

IBM wrote: post #268
themartorana wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Higher payouts" appear to be 71 (US) and 73% (rest of the world) vs. 70% from Spotify [0] (and likely very similar from other streaming services). 1% is a hilariously small amount to push expectations on artists without even asking. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/18/beggars-group-s...

And a 3 month free trial is a hilariously short period of time they won't be getting paid in the grand scheme of things. Aside from our characterizations of what is "hilariously small", the fact is that the major labels saw that the deal was worth it to them. And if any of these complaining labels were put to the test as to which deal they would prefer, (paid during free trial and industry standard rates or no paymen…

It would take nine years to make up that three month trial period on a 1% extra basis, not accounting for time value of money. They are not hilariously small/short on the same scale. And that doesn't even account for how artists are non-uniformly affected -- artists who are popular now are boned, whereas if you're popular in five years it's no big deal.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#389

Post by cdcarter »

petrbela wrote: post #218
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been years since I used iTunes on Windows but at the time incredibly slow and clunky to the point of incompetence would have summed up my views on it. I wonder how it compares now to Spotify there. On another note, Apple have a pretty good story with Airplay - does Spotify on iOS support that fully? On Android they don't support Chromecast and I've always thought that was an advantage of Play Music over Spotify…

Spotify app itself doesn't support AirPlay/Chromecast but some 3rd party apps allow you to stream Spotify to them. On the other hand, Spotify has its own streaming protocol which is supported by a few player/speaker brands (e.g. Gramofon).

Spotify app on iOs definitely supports AirPlay natively. I stream to my Airport Express pretty much every day.

Re: To Apple, Love Taylor

#390

Post by Mikeb85 »

jws wrote: post #301
luma wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does not require any music owner to put their music in Apple Music.

Of course they do. No music, no product.

Post reply on HN