I knew this would become an issue, same for books, movies, actors you name it. Bad move by Apple.
Let the people who curate the playlists use any song, artist, album they want in their playlists. THEN LET THE SUBSCRIBER DECIDE by giving them the option to opt out of any artist, song, album, rating, whatever they don't want to hear and the curated playlist will skip those. If not, good lordy half the hip hop artists would be off all playlists. Bad move by Apple.
They can decide by going to buy it elsewhere, see, all is done. The a book store has no obligation to host nazi literature and just "let people decide". The owners are also people and they have their right to sell what they want.
foggyhill - Your comments on this story make ZERO sense. Apple STILL SELLS R. Kelly music. They just aren't allowing their curators to include it In their playlists. So your nonsensical typical liberal reference to all things you don't like being "nazi" is utterly absurd. Next you'll be labeling anything you don't like as "hate". There is a lot of music I don't like and certainly artists of ill repute (ummm, Michael Jackson comes to mind) but I wouldn't censor a curator against including music that APPLE CONTINUES TO SELL. It is ridiculous and simply more politically correct nonsense that accomplishes ZERO - like your posts.
Is this a court, no, so wtf are you talking about.
Many things that can get you fired are not criminal matters, you're still fired though huh.
So if I said, that you molested me, you would be ok with being fired and had non criminal action taken against you, before you could prove, that you didn't do anything? I'm not defending this Kelly guy, don't know who he is to be honest.
Apple Music should curate every artist, so we can play music fit for the ears of children. They should represent what's best in people, like Disney. Apple has to take a stand for what is good and pure.
Have you ever worked for Disney? It’s the worst company.
And really, putting a company in control of what’s “good and pure”? Who’s in charge of creating that definition? Right, someone with a commercial agenda.
This is precisely the kind of reason why I “buy” music rather than “subscribe” to a service that can then dictate what I’m allowed to listen to / watch. Beyond the fact that none of the streaming services offer all of the artists / content I want to listen to / watch, by taking moral stands they further reduce that list.
Whilst I agree service providers can limit what they want to provide, as is their right, they need to be consistent across the board otherwise they bring themselves open to liability or accusations of hiposcristy. Regardless, I have always chosen with my wallet and choose not to subscribe to any streaming services directly; buying and owning the content I want instead.
I love the hypocrisy on display. R Kelly and XXXTentacion have been convicted of nothing and are removed from all playlists. Meanwhile Dr Dre, Tupac, and Chris Brown have all been convicted but they haven’t been removed. In the case of Dr Dre, he’s even still an employee of Apple despite a long history of assaulting women and being convicted of it in a court of law (Dee Barnes, Michel’le, Tairrie B, etc).
WTF are you on about? Kelly has been found guilty in the past. He also has a very long history of heinous crimes. Having a good lawyer because you have money, settling out of court, or being found not guilty is not the same as innocent.
Are you still defending OJ for not being a murderer because he was found not guilty in criminal court, or Casey Anthony of not murdering her daughter, or that Bill Cosby only raped 1 person because that's all he was convicted of which means the other 59 are liars?
in the eyes of the law, yes, that's all they are guilty of and all they should be punished for. likewise, some people are "proven guilty" when innocent - the fault lies with the justice system and that's where people ire should be directed, not trying to be a vigilante.
Comments
And really, putting a company in control of what’s “good and pure”? Who’s in charge of creating that definition? Right, someone with a commercial agenda.
Whilst I agree service providers can limit what they want to provide, as is their right, they need to be consistent across the board otherwise they bring themselves open to liability or accusations of hiposcristy. Regardless, I have always chosen with my wallet and choose not to subscribe to any streaming services directly; buying and owning the content I want instead.