Forums | MacLife

Well then since this thread was really about Amazon's MP3 service...

Amazon should give Apple a cut of all of their sales since most of the songs they sell are going to be played on iPods.

I'm still confused, but if we were talking about bread instead of music wouldn't we be talking about communism? Let's just give all our money to the Bureau of Music and Media and they will provide us with players and content. No?

pottymouth wrote:

Well then since this thread was really about Amazon's MP3 service...

Amazon should give Apple a cut of all of their sales since most of the songs they sell are going to be played on iPods.

Amazon is getting the business of the music labels because Apple is not fairly sharing revenue streams from the perspective of those labels.

and again to the very confused Frank, your CD does not contain mp3s.  YOUR CD PURCHASE DID NOT GIVE YOU AN MP3 MAKING LICENSE FOR PEER TO PEER FILE SHARING.  Just like you don't have a license to make and distribute an audio tape of it either.  However, for personal use, it does not violate the copywrite to duplicate it either.  HOWEVER, the audio tapes you purchased long ago to play in your car stereo included a blanket royalty license of 2%, becuase it was recognized that home taping was logically having a slight impact on sales.

That I should have to point out to you that your ability to makes mp3s from your CDs would make you very unlikely to buy those mp3s from Amazon or anywhere else is entirely the point.  Get it?

An mp3 is to a CD what a cassette is to a vinyl LP.

I think Apple and EVERY OTHER manufacturer of mp3 players should pay a small blanket royalty of 1 or 2%.

That I have to point out that iTunes is likely only free software because of the iPods should be obvious.  SoundJam was not totally free either, before Apple bought it.

They use software to drive hardware sales.  That is how Apple works.

Thusly, music content and piracy helps Apple sell hardware, Apple should help those they are helping to rip off.  I think NBC-Universal is just the tip of things to come if Apple does not change its tune on this issue.

Thusly, we now have the Amazon Music Store, and I imagine it may be getting a lot of exclusive artists pretty soon.

iThinkIam wrote:

pottymouth wrote:

Well then since this thread was really about Amazon's MP3 service...

Amazon should give Apple a cut of all of their sales since most of the songs they sell are going to be played on iPods.

Amazon is getting the business of the music labels because Apple is not fairly sharing revenue streams from the perspective of those labels.

and again to the very confused Frank, your CD does not contain mp3s.  YOUR CD PURCHASE DID NOT GIVE YOU AN MP3 MAKING LICENSE FOR PEER TO PEER FILE SHARING.  Just like you don't have a license to make and distribute an audio tape of it either.  However, for personal use, it does not violate the copywrite to duplicate it either.  HOWEVER, the audio tapes you purchased long ago to play in your car stereo included a blanket royalty license of 2%, becuase it was recognized that home taping was logically having a slight impact on sales.

That I should have to point out to you that your ability to makes mp3s from your CDs would make you very unlikely to buy those mp3s from Amazon or anywhere else is entirely the point.  Get it?

And this is why I fall into name-calling. Why do you  have in all caps that because I convert my CD to MP3 format that I am sharing it via peer to peer? I don't even have any peer to peer software installed on my machine. A logical conclusion for you to come to would MAYBE be to receive a royalty fee from peer to peer software makers, NOT from the people that make software that enables the legitimate purchase of music, like iTunes. Let's follow your logic a step further. Let's have a blanket licensing fee paid for every iPod or iTunes software that is being used. BUT, you can't also charge for the music at the iTunes store. It has to be free since it was already paid for with the blanket license. The problem that you don't seem to get is that you can't charge people twice for the same thing. Also, your LP to tape analogy only applies if the person then gave the tape of the LP to their friend. If they made a tape to listen to because they wanted to mix their music in a different order then it isn't stealing. That is fair use by any definition.

That I should have to point out to you that if I already purchased the CD and then converted it to MP3 that there is no logical reason that I would then purchase the MP3s again from Amazon is amazing to me. Of course I'm not going to purchase something I've already purchased. I am also not going to give it to someone else. That is the illogical and unfounded leap that you are applying to everyone as a blanket statement.

Frank

bratboy wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

Thusly, music content and piracy helps Apple sell hardware, Apple should help those they are helping to rip off.  I think NBC-Universal is just the tip of things to come if Apple does not change its tune on this issue.

"Helping to rip off?" 

Are you seriously lamenting  the fact that the poor recording industry () has been unable to leverage their power against Apple to the extent that they would like to?  Seriously?

No, I am not "lamenting," and your need to qualify the recording industry with the term "poor" goes someway to show your emotional coloring of the issue.

Tell me, simply, why it is not fair for Apple to pay a blanket royalty.

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Also the presumption that CD sales have declined solely or even largely due to piracy is unwarranted.

orly?  So 14 year old kids are not downloading music instead of getting Mom to buy them that new CD they just must have?

You sure about that?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

You might pass this info onto your friends in corporate media--not that they will listen, but at least you gave them a chance to reform their ways.

The RIAA is not the corporate media.  The RIAA is the artists union and there job is to protect and develop the artists royalty revenue streams.

Most recording artists enjoy criticizing the RIAA publically while fully supporting them behind closed doors.  I know this for a fact, but you can think whatever you want about it.

The point about corporate labels relationship is entirely different from the idea of the blanket royalty as I already stated.  Clearly, like most people, you really don't have a full grasp of this issue.

Frankly, most people don't even understand what buying copywritten music even means.

When someone can make a rational argument that a 2% blanket royalty on a profit of 2 to 3 billion dollars is not fair to recording artists, let me know.

That's completely laughable. While it is the responsibility for that corporate media to pass on the various fees and royalties to their artists, make no mistake that the RIAA only works for corporate media. To see that the RIAA doesn't have the interests of the artists in mind, you only have to look at the financially-crippling lawsuits launched by the RIAA against those artists fans--lawsuits, I might point out--which are settled out of court for a relatively modest fee of some thousands of dollars. Do you think that this doesn't create resentment toward those same artists, even among the people who aren't directly affected by the lawsuits?

What I mean by "unwarrented" is not to deny that piracy exists, but to deny the right that the *AA's are trying to invoke by implying that they must have increasing sales no matter what. This is despite the wide resentment that many people have with the quality of their output and despite the fact that other forms of entertainment are available that do not involve them. Just look at the sales of Halo 3 to look for only one of these alternatives--video games in particular do not lend themselves to having unrelated movies or music playing the background. The implication that Sony could double their sales if piracy were eliminated is one of the way that the corporations claim an apparently God-given right to increased sales.

You and the RIAA's anti-piracy lawyer need to review the law concerning fair use. Once you understand that, then you will see that your protests that "most people don't even understand what buying copywritten music even means" is wrong. Your blanket claim in your later post that everyone with an iPod is sharing any tracks via peer-to-peer is also wrong and simply insulting.

I assume that Janis Ian and Courtney Love are just crybabies to you, so I only point out their protests against the RIAA for the benefit of others.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2007-10-03 3:23 pm)

bratboy wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I can't imagine why it would matter to them, as long as they're getting paid.

So your point is that Universal likes helping Apple's hardware profit margins with their content?

Uh, no.

My point is that Universal is happy to get their paws on any amount of money generated by the sale of their MP3s that they can.

Would they like more money?  "Uh," yeah.  Everyone would like more money. 

Again, I find it mind-boggling that there is someone out their wringing their hands at the plight of the recording industry.

I find it "mind boggling" that you recognize the labels and artists are losing money while you buy iPods and rip CDs and Apple is making billions off this process and yet have no responsibility to the labels and recording artists!?  Without that content Apple would not have these revenue streams!  It is just that simple.

In case you and the others don't know, iTMS is already the third largest retailer of music in the world.  The only stores that exceed it are WalMart and BestBuy.

Again, you and some other people should try constructing a post that does not colorize me as "lamenting" or "wringing my hands" or bemoaning the "poor" wittle recording industry.

Most of my music is from independent labels and from CDs purchased long ago and I currently suscribe to eMusic and have resisted the Apple store due to its DRM policy.  I barely factor in this argument.

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-03 3:26 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

Tell me, simply, why it is not fair for Apple to pay a blanket royalty.

I don't think its fair for consumers to pay a *blanket* royalty cause surely apple isn't going to just eat the cost, its going to translate into higher prices at the cash register.

iThinkIam wrote:

I find it "mind boggling" that you recognize the labels and artists are losing money while you buy iPods and rip CDs and Apple is making billions off this process and yet have no responsibility to the labels and recording artists!?

"The labels and artists" are losing money because I rip my CDs?  How the smurf do you figure that?

Again, you and some other people should try constructing a post that does not colorize me as "lamenting" or "wringing my hands" or bemoaning the "poor" wittle recording industry.

You seem to be saying that the recording industry is being treated "unfairly."  Sorry, I don't see it....and I wholly reject the notion that it is Apple who is doing any "harm" that might be visited upon musicians through the legal purchase of their songs on iTunes. 

Most of my music is from independent labels and from CDs purchased long ago and I currently suscribe to eMusic and have resisted the Apple store due to its DRM policy.  I barely factor in this argument.

I own zero songs from the iTunes store, friend.

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

To see that the RIAA doesn't have the interests of the artists in mind [...]

So the record labels don't have the same interests and the artists they sign, which is to make money from doing what they love to do?

You whole post is ridiculous.

What say you of artists who are openly critical of the labels and the recording industry?  More ridiculousness?

bratboy wrote:

The recording industry walked right into this situation, but failing to adopt to the internet age and rise of the MP3 as a compression medium.:

How is mp3 and file sharing a situation that the recording industry walked into? 

They tried to stop the Rio, the first mp3 player, from EVEN BEING SOLD without a license or with a hardware to stop unlicensed music from being played.

I am not blaming anyone, I simply think Apple is not fairly sharing revenue that is dependent upon the creation of others.

Apple needs to open up iTunes to other mp3 players.

Really, in this situation, Apple is the corporate establishment and the labels and the artists are being left out in the cold.  I cannot believe you people cannot see that for what it is?

Apple is the evil, selfish, corporate establishment in this scenario.

ScifiterX wrote:

...The only actual legal limitations relate to trade of copyrighted materials and unauthorized duplication of copy-protected materials ...

I think that's the heart of the matter. Does the copyright apply to the CD or to the music? We think it obvioius that the copyright applies to the music, while iThinkIam is under the impression that it applies to the media.

iThinkIam wrote:

bratboy wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

So your point is that Universal likes helping Apple's hardware profit margins with their content?

Uh, no.

My point is that Universal is happy to get their paws on any amount of money generated by the sale of their MP3s that they can.

Would they like more money?  "Uh," yeah.  Everyone would like more money. 

Again, I find it mind-boggling that there is someone out their wringing their hands at the plight of the recording industry.

I find it "mind boggling" that you recognize the labels and artists are losing money while you buy iPods and rip CDs and Apple is making billions off this process and yet have no responsibility to the labels and recording artists!?  Without that content Apple would not have these revenue streams!  It is just that simple.

In case you and the others don't know, iTMS is already the third largest retailer of music in the world.  The only stores that exceed it are WalMart and BestBuy.

Again, you and some other people should try constructing a post that does not colorize me as "lamenting" or "wringing my hands" or bemoaning the "poor" wittle recording industry.

Most of my music is from independent labels and from CDs purchased long ago and I currently suscribe to eMusic and have resisted the Apple store due to its DRM policy.  I barely factor in this argument.

You are constantly conflating two issues. The fact that the iTMS is the third largest retailer of music only goes to PROVE that people that own iPods are already paying for their music. So again, why do you think they should pay for it a second time with this blanket royalty?

When I pay for satellite or cable should I also have to pay extra for the television that I need to watch that service???

Frank