Darn it's missing. If I was interested, I'd just grab a free copy and be done with it. So instead of getting something from me, she got nothing!!!. Her 1 person or so protest of streaming will do nothing but lose her money. Take it for what it is.
I don't really think she's particularly strapped for cash at the moment anyway.
If the point of this story is to stir up animosity toward Taylor Swift, I consider it a futile attempt. She controls her music and she has the right to do with it whatever she likes.
And move the playhead to 70:52, then press play. The Big Ben watch face appears at 70:58. Keep watching...the "Time Lapse" watch face appears again at 71:07, followed by a brief glimpse of the "Photos" watch face at 71:19. None of these watch faces were available at launch, and won't be available until watchOS 2.
Now, I say again: where's my click bait article entitled "Apple Watch to miss out on Time Lapse and Photos watch face"???
Some artists will be hold-outs till the first 3 months are out.
Personally, I'm just looking forward to listening to some 70s prog rock and possibly some 90s alternative. There are tons of albums and songs I really want to listen to but am loth to buy without giving them a listen first.
Of course, that's assuming I'm in one of the 100 launch countries.
Eightzero stated he/she had copied Copyrighted material for his/her own listening pleasure. He/she has taken something an artist created without recompense to that artist. Hence the allegation of theft.
And people wonder why music is worse today than before mass piracy was possible with such ease and anonymity! All the best song-writers/singers/artists/musicians are stacking shelves and flipping burgers instead of giving the world great new music - thanks, in part, to the greedy thieves above.
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
Fair enough. I retract my assertion against the above named forum member.
TS is pretty generous, from what I read in the news. She hands out 10s of thousands like candy bits. Her song, Shake it Off is super catchy. She's everywhere I look and then some.
I just can't help wonder if it's stupidity or narcissism when it comes to stars' views on allowing single song sales. I've never viewed breaking up an album as ruining the experience and frankly, most of the time there's just that one song I want.
I am sure she is just doing what the movie business do with a successful movie. Cinema first, then rental then DVD sales. This maximizes profits on a popular film.
While the album is still selling well, why not leave it that way. Being high in the Billboard charts must have some flow-on for extra sales and publicity. Just checked Billboard and she is still at no 2 after 33 weeks.
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
Part of the deal is that songs downloaded from iTunes Match are watermarked with the users AppleID on it. Thus, if aforementioned user uploaded those songs to a Bitorrent site, all of the torrent leeches would get his or her watermarked copy (I don't know what would happen if one of these secondary users then used iTunes Match for that song...) but the main point is if Mr RIAA is monitoring said torrents and gets hold of the AppleID there will be trouble. So the second reason the labels agreed to Match is for enforcement.
Of course I believe there are apparently ways to strip this watermark of tracks, but I imagine they will be too complicated/hard to find for the average user.
Really, it would be just so much easier to sign up to a streamer like Apple Music. :-)
Is that a big of a deal she's in on free period or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERokthemicright
I guess now they have bad blood...
That's a weird combination of quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostkiwi
Of course I believe there are apparently ways to strip this watermark of tracks, but I imagine they will be too complicated/hard to find for the average user.
Really, it would be just so much easier to sign up to a streamer like Apple Music. :-)
Just claim you uploaded the file from a country where it is legal to do so. The whole legal system for music files is broken anyway since there is no international database, nor any standard rule agreed on by everyone.
From the paying user's, perspective, how come I "own" a CD with a track, the same track bought again in iTunes, and the same track paid again in Steam, and I can give the song to my son when it's a CD, but not the listening rights on the other two paid services? How come I need to pay twice or thrice for the same thing (or, even, less)?
From the IP owner's perspective, the system is similarly broken since some countries will allow you to share the files, some not (assuming you have at least a legal copy of the music for most of the countries). I still think there should be a huge database somewhere, paid for by all the companies generating money out of the IP, which keeps track of who owns a listening right to what.
Also, it could be a nice idea if someone kept track of just how much more expensive music has become now that you pay 13 euros for an album on iTunes/Steam which you can't resell or transfer (because it's not an album you own, but just listening rights), instead of paying 13 euros for a CD... Lack of resale value has a cost that is not taken into account (might even be true in weird ways, such as "more bad music is created since more people end up getting a copy of said bad music and regretting it", I'd like to see a decent study on this).
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
So how is he not stealing? He didn't pay for the album.
Swift will go where the movie industry went years ago: issuing new music as purchase only (CD and iTunes), then releasing on paid-for subscription services, and ultimately, I am sure she will release on ad-supported streaming services. This makes perfect sense and it baffles me why the labels are not pushing this model universally.
Lesser known artists may chose to skip some parts of this monetisation chain.
Just claim you uploaded the file from a country where it is legal to do so. The whole legal system for music files is broken anyway since there is no international database, nor any standard rule agreed on by everyone.
From the paying user's, perspective, how come I "own" a CD with a track, the same track bought again in iTunes, and the same track paid again in Steam, and I can give the song to my son when it's a CD, but not the listening rights on the other two paid services? How come I need to pay twice or thrice for the same thing (or, even, less)?
From the IP owner's perspective, the system is similarly broken since some countries will allow you to share the files, some not (assuming you have at least a legal copy of the music for most of the countries). I still think there should be a huge database somewhere, paid for by all the companies generating money out of the IP, which keeps track of who owns a listening right to what.
Also, it could be a nice idea if someone kept track of just how much more expensive music has become now that you pay 13 euros for an album on iTunes/Steam which you can't resell or transfer (because it's not an album you own, but just listening rights), instead of paying 13 euros for a CD... Lack of resale value has a cost that is not taken into account (might even be true in weird ways, such as "more bad music is created since more people end up getting a copy of said bad music and regretting it", I'd like to see a decent study on this).
Most of the countries where it's legal to make a copy of an original CD for your own personal use, even if that copy belongs to a friend or library, paid for the rights to do so because they already paid a "music tax" of the blank media and the recording device. This "music tax" is distributed to the music union for this very purpose. (And you have to pay the "music tax" even if you didn't use it for music.)
Therefore, if you borrowed a CD from a friend or check one out from the library, you are not a thief if you make a copy of it for your own personal use. However, you are not allowed to make copies of your CD's for your friends. For you to not infringe on copyright laws, you have to loan the CD's to your friends and and let them make their own copies. And a copy can only be made from an original, it can not be made from a copy of that original. Even if the copy was legally made because then the copy was not made for personal use. Seem kind of weird, but that's how it works in many countries that let people share their music because of the "music tax".
I remember a dispute Apple had with Canada because Canada wanted to apply this "music tax" on an iPod. But Apple claimed that an iPod is a hard drive, not blank media and Canada did not collect a "music tax" on blank hard drives. Apple prevailed.
Even in the US, there's a "music tax" on certain blank media and certain type of recording devices. Though not as far reaching as many countries in the EU. So long as you are making copies of original CD's for your own personal use and not for distribution, you are not infringing on copyright right laws. So don't let anyone make you feel like a "thief" for copying a CD you checked out from the library for your own personal use. The music industry has been collecting money from you (and everyone else) for quite a while. Specially if you live in a country belonging to the EU. (This does not pertain to software and movies.)
Most of the countries where it's legal to make a copy of an original CD for your own personal use, even if that copy belongs to a friend or library, paid for the rights to do so because they already paid a "music tax" of the blank media and the recording device. This "music tax" is distributed to the music union for this very purpose. (And you have to pay the "music tax" even if you didn't use it for music.)
Therefore, if you borrowed a CD from a friend or check one out from the library, you are not a thief if you make a copy of it for your own personal use. However, you are not allowed to make copies of your CD's for your friends. For you to not infringe on copyright laws, you have to loan the CD's to your friends and and let them make their own copies. And a copy can only be made from an original, it can not be made from a copy of that original. Even if the copy was legally made because then the copy was not made for personal use. Seem kind of weird, but that's how it works in many countries that let people share their music because of the "music tax".
I remember a dispute Apple had with Canada because Canada wanted to apply this "music tax" on an iPod. But Apple claimed that an iPod is a hard drive, not blank media and Canada did not collect a "music tax" on blank hard drives. Apple prevailed.
Even in the US, there's a "music tax" on certain blank media and certain type of recording devices. Though not as far reaching as many countries in the EU. So long as you are making copies of original CD's for your own personal use and not for distribution, you are not infringing on copyright right laws. So don't let anyone make you feel like a "thief" for copying a CD you checked out from the library for your own personal use. The music industry has been collecting money from you (and everyone else) for quite a while. Specially if you live in a country belonging to the EU. (This does not pertain to software and movies.)
You're right, but I don't understand how it counters anything I said?
In France and the NL, as you say, any device capable of storing music is subject to the tax, whatever the use you ultimately make of it. It raises interesting questions and parallels. An outrageous, but still valid, parallel would be making everyone serve a small prison sentence anytime somebody kills someone else, on the grounds that there is a small social responsibility of everyone, collectively (which of course is true.... but still... no one in their right mind could argue for such a system... right?)
The system as it is is designed to protect the IP owners, or at least that's how it's advertised. Some people argue that it's designed to serve itself, looking at the money flow...
Comments
There is this thing called torrent.
So you're openly advocating illegal activities?
Shake it off
Wasn't the Big Ben/Thames Watch face shown at WWDC 2015 for watchOS 2 not for watchOS?
Yes, but it was first shown during the Sept 2014 unveiling. Open this link:
http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/
And move the playhead to 70:52, then press play. The Big Ben watch face appears at 70:58. Keep watching...the "Time Lapse" watch face appears again at 71:07, followed by a brief glimpse of the "Photos" watch face at 71:19. None of these watch faces were available at launch, and won't be available until watchOS 2.
Now, I say again: where's my click bait article entitled "Apple Watch to miss out on Time Lapse and Photos watch face"???
Some artists will be hold-outs till the first 3 months are out.
Personally, I'm just looking forward to listening to some 70s prog rock and possibly some 90s alternative. There are tons of albums and songs I really want to listen to but am loth to buy without giving them a listen first.
Of course, that's assuming I'm in one of the 100 launch countries.
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
Fair enough. I retract my assertion against the above named forum member.
TS is pretty generous, from what I read in the news. She hands out 10s of thousands like candy bits. Her song, Shake it Off is super catchy. She's everywhere I look and then some.
I just can't help wonder if it's stupidity or narcissism when it comes to stars' views on allowing single song sales. I've never viewed breaking up an album as ruining the experience and frankly, most of the time there's just that one song I want.
I am sure she is just doing what the movie business do with a successful movie. Cinema first, then rental then DVD sales. This maximizes profits on a popular film.
While the album is still selling well, why not leave it that way. Being high in the Billboard charts must have some flow-on for extra sales and publicity. Just checked Billboard and she is still at no 2 after 33 weeks.
http://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200
I would be surprised the album is not made available for subscription streaming by the time it falls out of the top 100.
I think she might hate, hate, hate, hate, hate streaming.
Except eightzero stated it was uploaded to iTunes Match, which is not the same as simply making a copy. You're paying $25 a year for this privilege.
Apple promotes Match as a way to convert ALL your music to legally owned iTunes versions. It's really a way for record labels to collect money from people pirating music, instead of them pirating and paying nothing. They just can't say that's what it really does.
Match does absolutely NOTHNG to try and determine the origin of a song on your computer. It treats all music, whether ripped from your CD, a friends CD or even torrented from The Pirate Bay, as equal. They all get converted into legal iTunes copies.
Part of the deal is that songs downloaded from iTunes Match are watermarked with the users AppleID on it. Thus, if aforementioned user uploaded those songs to a Bitorrent site, all of the torrent leeches would get his or her watermarked copy (I don't know what would happen if one of these secondary users then used iTunes Match for that song...) but the main point is if Mr RIAA is monitoring said torrents and gets hold of the AppleID there will be trouble. So the second reason the labels agreed to Match is for enforcement.
Of course I believe there are apparently ways to strip this watermark of tracks, but I imagine they will be too complicated/hard to find for the average user.
Really, it would be just so much easier to sign up to a streamer like Apple Music. :-)
Is that a big of a deal she's in on free period or not?
I guess now they have bad blood...
That's a weird combination of quotes.
Of course I believe there are apparently ways to strip this watermark of tracks, but I imagine they will be too complicated/hard to find for the average user.
Really, it would be just so much easier to sign up to a streamer like Apple Music. :-)
Just claim you uploaded the file from a country where it is legal to do so. The whole legal system for music files is broken anyway since there is no international database, nor any standard rule agreed on by everyone.
From the paying user's, perspective, how come I "own" a CD with a track, the same track bought again in iTunes, and the same track paid again in Steam, and I can give the song to my son when it's a CD, but not the listening rights on the other two paid services? How come I need to pay twice or thrice for the same thing (or, even, less)?
From the IP owner's perspective, the system is similarly broken since some countries will allow you to share the files, some not (assuming you have at least a legal copy of the music for most of the countries). I still think there should be a huge database somewhere, paid for by all the companies generating money out of the IP, which keeps track of who owns a listening right to what.
Also, it could be a nice idea if someone kept track of just how much more expensive music has become now that you pay 13 euros for an album on iTunes/Steam which you can't resell or transfer (because it's not an album you own, but just listening rights), instead of paying 13 euros for a CD... Lack of resale value has a cost that is not taken into account (might even be true in weird ways, such as "more bad music is created since more people end up getting a copy of said bad music and regretting it", I'd like to see a decent study on this).
So how is he not stealing? He didn't pay for the album.
Are you that st****??
Don't let thieves convince you with some false rationality why they are not stealing.
I assume you haven't checked out her latest album?
Swift will go where the movie industry went years ago: issuing new music as purchase only (CD and iTunes), then releasing on paid-for subscription services, and ultimately, I am sure she will release on ad-supported streaming services. This makes perfect sense and it baffles me why the labels are not pushing this model universally.
Lesser known artists may chose to skip some parts of this monetisation chain.
Can I pay extra to have all of Taylor Swift's material removed from Apple Music?
That's a weird combination of quotes.
Just claim you uploaded the file from a country where it is legal to do so. The whole legal system for music files is broken anyway since there is no international database, nor any standard rule agreed on by everyone.
From the paying user's, perspective, how come I "own" a CD with a track, the same track bought again in iTunes, and the same track paid again in Steam, and I can give the song to my son when it's a CD, but not the listening rights on the other two paid services? How come I need to pay twice or thrice for the same thing (or, even, less)?
From the IP owner's perspective, the system is similarly broken since some countries will allow you to share the files, some not (assuming you have at least a legal copy of the music for most of the countries). I still think there should be a huge database somewhere, paid for by all the companies generating money out of the IP, which keeps track of who owns a listening right to what.
Also, it could be a nice idea if someone kept track of just how much more expensive music has become now that you pay 13 euros for an album on iTunes/Steam which you can't resell or transfer (because it's not an album you own, but just listening rights), instead of paying 13 euros for a CD... Lack of resale value has a cost that is not taken into account (might even be true in weird ways, such as "more bad music is created since more people end up getting a copy of said bad music and regretting it", I'd like to see a decent study on this).
Most of the countries where it's legal to make a copy of an original CD for your own personal use, even if that copy belongs to a friend or library, paid for the rights to do so because they already paid a "music tax" of the blank media and the recording device. This "music tax" is distributed to the music union for this very purpose. (And you have to pay the "music tax" even if you didn't use it for music.)
Therefore, if you borrowed a CD from a friend or check one out from the library, you are not a thief if you make a copy of it for your own personal use. However, you are not allowed to make copies of your CD's for your friends. For you to not infringe on copyright laws, you have to loan the CD's to your friends and and let them make their own copies. And a copy can only be made from an original, it can not be made from a copy of that original. Even if the copy was legally made because then the copy was not made for personal use. Seem kind of weird, but that's how it works in many countries that let people share their music because of the "music tax".
I remember a dispute Apple had with Canada because Canada wanted to apply this "music tax" on an iPod. But Apple claimed that an iPod is a hard drive, not blank media and Canada did not collect a "music tax" on blank hard drives. Apple prevailed.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#is_it_a_tax
And Amazon being hit with a "music tax" bill for blank media sales in Austria.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/amazon-fights-24-million-tax-583911
Even in the US, there's a "music tax" on certain blank media and certain type of recording devices. Though not as far reaching as many countries in the EU. So long as you are making copies of original CD's for your own personal use and not for distribution, you are not infringing on copyright right laws. So don't let anyone make you feel like a "thief" for copying a CD you checked out from the library for your own personal use. The music industry has been collecting money from you (and everyone else) for quite a while. Specially if you live in a country belonging to the EU. (This does not pertain to software and movies.)
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/1037/wipo_pub_1037_2013.pdf
Most of the countries where it's legal to make a copy of an original CD for your own personal use, even if that copy belongs to a friend or library, paid for the rights to do so because they already paid a "music tax" of the blank media and the recording device. This "music tax" is distributed to the music union for this very purpose. (And you have to pay the "music tax" even if you didn't use it for music.)
Therefore, if you borrowed a CD from a friend or check one out from the library, you are not a thief if you make a copy of it for your own personal use. However, you are not allowed to make copies of your CD's for your friends. For you to not infringe on copyright laws, you have to loan the CD's to your friends and and let them make their own copies. And a copy can only be made from an original, it can not be made from a copy of that original. Even if the copy was legally made because then the copy was not made for personal use. Seem kind of weird, but that's how it works in many countries that let people share their music because of the "music tax".
I remember a dispute Apple had with Canada because Canada wanted to apply this "music tax" on an iPod. But Apple claimed that an iPod is a hard drive, not blank media and Canada did not collect a "music tax" on blank hard drives. Apple prevailed.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#is_it_a_tax
And Amazon being hit with a "music tax" bill for blank media sales in Austria.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/amazon-fights-24-million-tax-583911
Even in the US, there's a "music tax" on certain blank media and certain type of recording devices. Though not as far reaching as many countries in the EU. So long as you are making copies of original CD's for your own personal use and not for distribution, you are not infringing on copyright right laws. So don't let anyone make you feel like a "thief" for copying a CD you checked out from the library for your own personal use. The music industry has been collecting money from you (and everyone else) for quite a while. Specially if you live in a country belonging to the EU. (This does not pertain to software and movies.)
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/1037/wipo_pub_1037_2013.pdf
You're right, but I don't understand how it counters anything I said?
In France and the NL, as you say, any device capable of storing music is subject to the tax, whatever the use you ultimately make of it. It raises interesting questions and parallels. An outrageous, but still valid, parallel would be making everyone serve a small prison sentence anytime somebody kills someone else, on the grounds that there is a small social responsibility of everyone, collectively (which of course is true.... but still... no one in their right mind could argue for such a system... right?)
The system as it is is designed to protect the IP owners, or at least that's how it's advertised. Some people argue that it's designed to serve itself, looking at the money flow...