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.
Albums have themes. They put them together based on that. Do we allow selling chapters of a book individually? Grant it many songs suck on an album but I'm looking at it from the artist's perspective.
Albums have themes. They put them together based on that. Do we allow selling chapters of a book individually? Grant it many songs suck on an album but I'm looking at it from the artist's perspective.
And you don't either get to only buy the part of the postcard you like!
The problem is, as everyone knows, a lot of "artists" make a few good tracks, and then fill the rest of the album with filler. (Sometimes it's not even the artists decision, but the labels. You have to be a very popular, bankable, and artistically minded person to be able to go against the labels and enforce your artistic vision.)
However, in the case of powerful artists creating an album that makes sense, I totally agree with them. Bowie's albums tend to tell a story, for example. Another example, Tri Yann's album "le vaisseau de pierre", which tells the same story as the eponymous comic in an amazing epic soundtrack (in the original sense of "epic"). Or Daft Punk's Discovery album, which tells so much of a story that it later was turned into a movie by TOEI...
So I guess now we know why Eddy and Jimmy didn't talk up how big the streaming library was at WWDC...because it's probably not much bigger than what everyone else has right now. We know they don't have the Beatles or for sure Eddy would have been playing some Beatles music on stage. I'd love to know what big artist they have that no one else does.
Dear Apple, Please don't be offended and thank Miss Swift for denying you access to her new CD. It will save me from unneeded stress. I CANNOT STAND HER.
Checked it out of the library, ripped it to iTunes and now its uploaded by Match. Done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Common thief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran
Please explain
Since you apparently don’t have a moral compass let me dumb it down for you. He ‘borrowed’ a copyrighted work, copied it, added it to his collection all without compensating the copyright owner. He is benefiting from someone else’s sweat and work. He stole someone’s work. He is a common thief. People like you like to argue that it’s not theft since it’s not a physical product like a CD disc. That’s a copout to avoid the moral and ethical question. If you were a performing musician whose living depended on being paid for your work you might think differently.
Dear Apple, Please don't be offended and thank Miss Swift for denying you access to her new CD. It will save me from unneeded stress. I CANNOT STAND THE BITCH
She owns her work. She has the right to distribute it or withhold it as she sees fit. That you don’t like her, her work, or her business or personal decisions is irrelevant to the topic.
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).
It has nothing to do with whether the copy you uploaded is legal or not. It's the distribution of said copy on bit torrent that is a violation of copyright laws. Even in countries that has legal music sharing. Even if you claim that the person that uploaded your iTune watermarked music was a person you legally shared your music with, I don't think you can legally give your friend a copy of an album you bought on iTunes so it can be copied. It would not be an original that you shared. the only way is through sharing on an authorized computer. Which you are still responsible for.
Why would you buy an iTune track of a track you have on a legal CD when you can legally put that track on the CD into iTunes?
You can share your iTunes purchases with your son by authorizing his computer to your iTunes account. You're allowed 5 authorized computers per account. You can legally share your music to an unlimited amount of iPods that are synced to your computers.
I don't know if you can share a streaming account across several devices. But it should be allowed. Suppose you want to hear the streaming music, you're paying for, on your iPhone, iPad and a laptop? Are you suppose to pay per device? Even Netflix allows sharing of your account across several devices, at the same time.
The database that RIAA uses is that everyone copies music to be shared and therefore everyone must pay a "music tax". As far as the music industry is concern, everyone listens to music that they didn't purchase, therefore everyone must be taxed for it.
Part of the total cost of owning music is the time it takes to put the music into your computer or mobile device. With a store purchase CD, not only must you copy the music to said device the first time. But again, if your HD crashes or if you lose your computer or get a new mobile device. With iTune purchases, your music will be installed back into your new device, through iTunes, once your account is verified for that device. This matters to a lot of music listeners with large music libraries. (I believe it's the same for Amazon downloads and others.)
But the biggest saving of downloaded music is that one don't have to purchase the whole CD to get the few (or one track) they want. If one wants the lowest cost for owning the music from the whole CD ……. buy it used.
Up until yesterday Taylor Swift's music was a talking point for some members here when discussing why Apple Music was better than Spotify. Then it isn't one anymore. Taylor Swift is to now to be dissed I guess? There should at least be some consistency.
Up until yesterday Taylor Swift's music was a talking point for some members here when discussing why Apple Music was better than Spotify. Then it isn't one anymore. Taylor Swift is to now to be dissed I guess? There should at least be some consistency.
All her older albums will be on ? Music so it's still relevant in the comparison to Spotty and others. I'm sure 1989 will be appear on Apple streaming when the trial periods dry up.
She controls everything that's done in and around her. I applaud her for that. Most other artists are pretty envious of he freedom she has I'm sure.
Dear Apple, Please don't be offended and thank Miss Swift for denying you access to her new CD. It will save me from unneeded stress. I CANNOT STAND THE BITCH
Just because you don't like doesn't mean you an call her that. What has she done to deserve that epitaph?
What Apple should do is leverage their stance in the market with iTunes to build Apple Music. Combine the two into one contract. You want to be on iTunes? You will be featured in Apple Music also.. Want to be on Apple Music? Your stuff can also be purchased from our iTunes store.
Music downloads are on their way out and iTunes is still the premier offering. With the market shift, there won't be another contender that will dethrone iTunes. Look at how many artists have had a huge launch on iTunes only to make headlines and lots, and lots of money. If they made it an all-inclusive deal to host your music on everything Apple, Apple Music would be fine and the artists would be fine. Money across the board for artists and for Apple.
Since you apparently don’t have a moral compass let me dumb it down for you. He ‘borrowed’ a copyrighted work, copied it, added it to his collection all without compensating the copyright owner. He is benefiting from someone else’s sweat and work. He stole someone’s work. He is a common thief. People like you like to argue that it’s not theft since it’s not a physical product like a CD disc. That’s a copout to avoid the moral and ethical question. If you were a performing musician whose living depended on being paid for your work you might think differently.
First of all, it's not thievery or copyright infringement in some countries. Making a copy from an original CD borrowed the library is legal in some countries. Providing the copy made is for personal use. And there are some people on this forum that are from these countries. They would not be violating any copyright laws, though I suppose they would still be "thieves" in your eyes because they did not compensate the copyright owner for the copy.
Supposed I bought a used CD? Or found one? Am I a thief because I didn't compensate the copyright owner for the music I now own and have in my computer? What about if I got into my friends car and I got to hear music that he owns but I don't own and therefore the copyright owner was not compensated? The truth is, is that RIAA thinks everybody is a "thief" if they hear music that they did not pay for. Even borrowing one from the library to listen to and not to copy. Thus the RIAA would like to see a " music tax" not only on blank media but as a deduction on everyone's pay check. This to cover all the times everyone hears music that they didn't compensate the copyright owner for. It would be right next to the SS and medicare deduction on your pay stub.
What copying music illegally amounts to is copyright infringement. It's not about being a thief. It's much more serious. One can be fined tens of thousands of dollars, per incident, for the reproduction of copyrighted works without permission. If it was just a matter of being a thief, because the copyright owner was not compensated (for what may be less than a $2.00 in royalty that copyright owner would have gotten if a new CD was purchased), then the tens of thousands of dollars fine for just making one illegal copy does not fit the crime.
But who's really the bigger thief here, when you consider that the RIAA imposes a "music tax" on all blank media (including cassette tapes back in the 70's) and recording devices. Even if the purchasers didn't use the blank media for music or for music that they legally own. Why should a music owner pay the "music tax" for blank media that was used to legally back up the CD's (or vinyl albums) that was legally purchased? And then the RIAA distribute all this "music tax" money they collected to the copyrighted music owners. (well, maybe not all of it, I'm sure they keep some of it to pay for lobbying.)
Comments
Albums have themes. They put them together based on that. Do we allow selling chapters of a book individually? Grant it many songs suck on an album but I'm looking at it from the artist's perspective.
Albums have themes. They put them together based on that. Do we allow selling chapters of a book individually? Grant it many songs suck on an album but I'm looking at it from the artist's perspective.
And you don't either get to only buy the part of the postcard you like!
The problem is, as everyone knows, a lot of "artists" make a few good tracks, and then fill the rest of the album with filler. (Sometimes it's not even the artists decision, but the labels. You have to be a very popular, bankable, and artistically minded person to be able to go against the labels and enforce your artistic vision.)
However, in the case of powerful artists creating an album that makes sense, I totally agree with them. Bowie's albums tend to tell a story, for example. Another example, Tri Yann's album "le vaisseau de pierre", which tells the same story as the eponymous comic in an amazing epic soundtrack (in the original sense of "epic"). Or Daft Punk's Discovery album, which tells so much of a story that it later was turned into a movie by TOEI...
Dear Apple, Please don't be offended and thank Miss Swift for denying you access to her new CD. It will save me from unneeded stress. I CANNOT STAND HER.
I was just going to ask the same thing!
Checked it out of the library, ripped it to iTunes and now its uploaded by Match. Done.
Common thief.
Please explain
Since you apparently don’t have a moral compass let me dumb it down for you. He ‘borrowed’ a copyrighted work, copied it, added it to his collection all without compensating the copyright owner. He is benefiting from someone else’s sweat and work. He stole someone’s work. He is a common thief. People like you like to argue that it’s not theft since it’s not a physical product like a CD disc. That’s a copout to avoid the moral and ethical question. If you were a performing musician whose living depended on being paid for your work you might think differently.
Dear Apple, Please don't be offended and thank Miss Swift for denying you access to her new CD. It will save me from unneeded stress. I CANNOT STAND THE BITCH
She owns her work. She has the right to distribute it or withhold it as she sees fit. That you don’t like her, her work, or her business or personal decisions is irrelevant to the topic.
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).
It has nothing to do with whether the copy you uploaded is legal or not. It's the distribution of said copy on bit torrent that is a violation of copyright laws. Even in countries that has legal music sharing. Even if you claim that the person that uploaded your iTune watermarked music was a person you legally shared your music with, I don't think you can legally give your friend a copy of an album you bought on iTunes so it can be copied. It would not be an original that you shared. the only way is through sharing on an authorized computer. Which you are still responsible for.
Why would you buy an iTune track of a track you have on a legal CD when you can legally put that track on the CD into iTunes?
You can share your iTunes purchases with your son by authorizing his computer to your iTunes account. You're allowed 5 authorized computers per account. You can legally share your music to an unlimited amount of iPods that are synced to your computers.
I don't know if you can share a streaming account across several devices. But it should be allowed. Suppose you want to hear the streaming music, you're paying for, on your iPhone, iPad and a laptop? Are you suppose to pay per device? Even Netflix allows sharing of your account across several devices, at the same time.
The database that RIAA uses is that everyone copies music to be shared and therefore everyone must pay a "music tax". As far as the music industry is concern, everyone listens to music that they didn't purchase, therefore everyone must be taxed for it.
Part of the total cost of owning music is the time it takes to put the music into your computer or mobile device. With a store purchase CD, not only must you copy the music to said device the first time. But again, if your HD crashes or if you lose your computer or get a new mobile device. With iTune purchases, your music will be installed back into your new device, through iTunes, once your account is verified for that device. This matters to a lot of music listeners with large music libraries. (I believe it's the same for Amazon downloads and others.)
But the biggest saving of downloaded music is that one don't have to purchase the whole CD to get the few (or one track) they want. If one wants the lowest cost for owning the music from the whole CD ……. buy it used.
She controls everything that's done in and around her. I applaud her for that. Most other artists are pretty envious of he freedom she has I'm sure.
Latest Taylor Swift album missing.
Wow, this feature is great ! Apple really worked hard to make their service better.
Just because you don't like doesn't mean you an call her that. What has she done to deserve that epitaph?
I am calling FBI.
Common thief.
Yes, I now feel shame. Thank you for pointing out my misdeeds. I've deleted the ill gotten booty, and will never do this again.
Why would anybody care anyway? Her music is complete garbage. Apple is better off without it. As Spotify already is better off.
I wonder whether Apple Music will pay attention to the fact that I purchased the album - although not from iTunes - and it's in my library.
Is it playable in this scenario?
Music downloads are on their way out and iTunes is still the premier offering. With the market shift, there won't be another contender that will dethrone iTunes. Look at how many artists have had a huge launch on iTunes only to make headlines and lots, and lots of money. If they made it an all-inclusive deal to host your music on everything Apple, Apple Music would be fine and the artists would be fine. Money across the board for artists and for Apple.
eigthzero said:
Checked it out of the library, ripped it to iTunes and now its uploaded by Match. Done.
How is that not stealing?
Since you apparently don’t have a moral compass let me dumb it down for you. He ‘borrowed’ a copyrighted work, copied it, added it to his collection all without compensating the copyright owner. He is benefiting from someone else’s sweat and work. He stole someone’s work. He is a common thief. People like you like to argue that it’s not theft since it’s not a physical product like a CD disc. That’s a copout to avoid the moral and ethical question. If you were a performing musician whose living depended on being paid for your work you might think differently.
First of all, it's not thievery or copyright infringement in some countries. Making a copy from an original CD borrowed the library is legal in some countries. Providing the copy made is for personal use. And there are some people on this forum that are from these countries. They would not be violating any copyright laws, though I suppose they would still be "thieves" in your eyes because they did not compensate the copyright owner for the copy.
Supposed I bought a used CD? Or found one? Am I a thief because I didn't compensate the copyright owner for the music I now own and have in my computer? What about if I got into my friends car and I got to hear music that he owns but I don't own and therefore the copyright owner was not compensated? The truth is, is that RIAA thinks everybody is a "thief" if they hear music that they did not pay for. Even borrowing one from the library to listen to and not to copy. Thus the RIAA would like to see a " music tax" not only on blank media but as a deduction on everyone's pay check. This to cover all the times everyone hears music that they didn't compensate the copyright owner for. It would be right next to the SS and medicare deduction on your pay stub.
What copying music illegally amounts to is copyright infringement. It's not about being a thief. It's much more serious. One can be fined tens of thousands of dollars, per incident, for the reproduction of copyrighted works without permission. If it was just a matter of being a thief, because the copyright owner was not compensated (for what may be less than a $2.00 in royalty that copyright owner would have gotten if a new CD was purchased), then the tens of thousands of dollars fine for just making one illegal copy does not fit the crime.
But who's really the bigger thief here, when you consider that the RIAA imposes a "music tax" on all blank media (including cassette tapes back in the 70's) and recording devices. Even if the purchasers didn't use the blank media for music or for music that they legally own. Why should a music owner pay the "music tax" for blank media that was used to legally back up the CD's (or vinyl albums) that was legally purchased? And then the RIAA distribute all this "music tax" money they collected to the copyrighted music owners. (well, maybe not all of it, I'm sure they keep some of it to pay for lobbying.)
Just because you don't like doesn't mean you an call her that. What has she done to deserve that epitaph?
She did not immediately and blindly sign on to Apple Music.