Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

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?

I didn't.  to paraphrase: How the smurf did you come up with that?

iThinkIam wrote:

I find it "mind boggling" that you recognize the ....

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.

When did Apple not fairly sharing its revenue streams become Apple is causing "harm?"  Do you actually respond to people's posts, or the just the interpretations you invent?

Why do you limit this to legal music?  I have never argued that apple is causing harm with legal downloads, so I find it odd that you'd reject that argument as it's not being made by anyone.

Do iPods only play *legal* music?

Does iTunes only play the music that it rips?

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.

Good for you, but I am not your friend, friend.

How many mp3s have you payed royalties for?  How much money have you spent on mp3 players?

If you could not rip a cd, would you buy cds or mp3s?

How is an iPod+iTunes any different than a tape deck or recording Walkman with a massive cassette in it?

If you make one more straw man response to one of my posts, I will not reply to you.  You are wasting my time with irrelevant objections and distorting my simple argument that you still have not responded to in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-03 3:51 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

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

Sorry, let me slow it down for you:  The situation that the recording industry "walked into" is the one where Apple dominates the sale of music tracks online.  Do. you.follow?

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.

Right....more backwards behavior.

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.

"Left out in the cold?"  You see to completely disregard the massive benefit that has flowed to the recording industry through Apple's business.  Do you know what the state of the industry had been?

Apple is a rare growth story in the music business. It nearly monopolizes digital-music sales, just about the only growth area for the beleaguered industry, which saw CD sales fall for seven years running. ITunes sold 1.2 billion songs last year compared with 30 million in 2003, its first year in operation, Apple says. The company says it passed Amazon.com last year to become the fourth-largest music retailer in the U.S., behind Wal-Mart Stores, Target and Best Buy, a claim that isn't disputed by music companies. At the end of last year, Apple was selling five million songs a day at 99 cents each.

Label executives say that since Apple began selling TV shows and movies in the past year, they must begin discussions with Apple three to six months before a major music release if they want a shot at home-page promotion. In physical stores, such prime real estate is typically for sale. To secure prominent "end-cap" placement on CD racks near the ends of aisles at national retail chains, major music labels can pay as much as $5 per disc displayed in the form of discounts, "cooperative advertising" payments and other fees, according to executives. That adds up to tens of thousands of dollars for a major promotion involving 5,000 discs or more. Such hefty payments can effectively erase any profit on the CDs on display in an end-cap.

Apple says it shunned pay-for-placement -- as have online rivals including RealNetworks' Rhapsody -- to provide unbiased music recommendations. Eddy Cue, the Apple vice president who oversees iTunes, says the company hopes to recapture some of the spirit of independent record stores, when clerks would give uncompromised tips on promising performers. "That for us was kind of gone in the new retail environment," Mr. Cue says. Customers used to believe that advice on music "was coming from someone who really liked it versus someone who was paid to say they liked it."

Apple isn't under as much pressure to squeeze profits from iTunes because of the money it makes on iPods. In fact, it earns little from iTunes after paying fees for the music and credit-card processing. ITunes typically pays major labels about 72 cents a track, while it pays most independent labels around 62 cents.

LInk.

Who's left out in the cold, now?  Seriously, who is going broke?

iThinkIam wrote:

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.

1) They walked into it by stopping the sale of singles. Prior to the CD they sold singles for a fair price. With the release of the CD they suddenly thought it was okay to force people to buy an entire CD. So, if someone previously bought 100 singles per year for an average of $1.75 then they were spending $175 per year on singles. If they were forced to buy the entire CD for an average of $12 they would have to spend $1200 to buy the same music. How is this fair by any stretch of the imagination. The iTMS brought singles back. The fact that there was a gap for almost 15 years is what led to people using Napster.

2) The record companies signed the contract with Apple. If they didn't think it was fair they shouldn't have signed. Apple had no pull prior to opening the iTMS. The record execs are big boys. It is their own damn fault if they aren't happy and notice that they have all resigned because the original deals expired long ago.

3) Please tell me exactly what purpose opening up the iTMS to other MP3 players would do? Can they not purchase at any of the dozen other stores??? How does this help your cause at all? And for the record Apple wants to sell DRM free songs. It is the record companies that don't want to sell them through Apple (except for EMI).

You are really showing how little grip you have on this situation with every post you make.

ScifiterX wrote:

Well he's in error. Copyright applies to the music. There's very straightforward fair usage rights for it. Copy protection applies the the DRM protecting the media format the only legal workarounds are only the specified ones provider for as part of the license agreement.

I am not sure what you are talking about or responding to.

Only musicians and labels hold the copywrites. 

Do you even understand what intellectual property is?

A music purchase is a purchase of the recording, with a limited license on what you can do with that recording you purchased.

Technically, when you buy music, you are not buying the actual music, just that medium with that copy on it.

Again, I am not surprised that you would reveal that you don't understand the essential fundamentals of the issue.

iThinkIam wrote:

bratboy wrote:

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?

I didn't.  to paraphrase: How the smurf did you come up with that?

Did you or did you not say this:  "I find it "mind boggling" that you recognize the labels and artists are losing money while you buy iPods and rip CDs..."?

"Losing money"....how?  You're having difficulty expressing your thoughts, but I'll give you another opportunity.

When did Apple not fairly sharing its revenue streams become Apple is causing "harm?"  Do you actually respond to people's posts, or the just the interpretations you invent?

"Losing money" is not harm?

Why do you limit this to legal music?  I have never argued that apple is causing harm with legal downloads, so I find it odd that you'd reject that argument as it's not being made by anyone.

You stated that artists were losing money by ripping CDs.  No?

Do iPods only play *legal* music?

Does iTunes only play the music that it rips?

No, iPods can play illegally obtained music...just like nearly any sort of device that plays back recorded material.

How many mp3s have you payed royalties for?  How much money have you spent on mp3 players?

If you could not rip a cd, would you buy cds or mp3s?

How is an iPod+iTunes any different than a tape deck or recording Walkman with a massive cassette in it?

If you're referring to "royalties" that were paid on hardware sales in the past....how did those royalty agreements come about? 

If you make one more straw man response to one of my posts, I will not reply to you.  You are wasting my time with irrelevant objections and distorting my simple argument that you still have not responded to in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Oh, spare me...you're taking this entirely too seriously.  If you fail to respond, I'm sure I'll get over it.

iThinkIam wrote:

Again, I am not surprised that you would reveal that you don't understand the essential fundamentals of the issue.

Nice.

It's copyright, you know.

Your points have been addressed.  Scroll up.

iThinkIam wrote:

You still have not responded why it is fair for Apple to not have to share its revenue streams.

Opening iTunes, by which I really mean restoring SoundJam/iTunes back to the open platforms they once were... would be Apple playing fair and allowing for competition.

I never realized how proud some people were of the Apple close-ended monopoly.   It's quite astounding.

Apple gives the revenue to the record company for the sale of their products, NOT for the sale of the product that Apple makes, the iPod. It is ridiculous to argue this point further since you are not capable of seeing logic. How about this, since Apple sells the dominant player of music in the world, the record companies should pay a fee to Apple. Without Apple how would people listen to their music??? The exec of Warner Brothers said just the other day that people are more loyal to their iPod than they are to any given artist. It only makes sense by your logic that without the iPod people wouldn't listen to music so the record companies should pay them?

No? Sound crazy? Well so does paying for the music twice, once when we actually buy the song and again when we buy a device to play the song on. Frickin' crazy.

There is no need to open iTunes and it isn't a monopoly because there are plenty of other choices out there. In fact, if you have a player from another manufacturer you can buy your music from dozens of different stores. Why do you need to buy from Apple? It just doesn't make sense that this is a problem for you, especially since you want to bring the evil Apple down.

Frank

bratboy wrote:

Your points have been addressed.  Scroll up.

In perpetuity.

frankly wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

You still have not responded why it is fair for Apple to not have to share its revenue streams.

Opening iTunes, by which I really mean restoring SoundJam/iTunes back to the open platforms they once were... would be Apple playing fair and allowing for competition.

I never realized how proud some people were of the Apple close-ended monopoly.   It's quite astounding.

Apple gives the revenue to the record company for the sale of their products, NOT for the sale of the product that Apple makes, the iPod. It is ridiculous to argue this point further since you are not capable of seeing logic. How about this, since Apple sells the dominant player of music in the world, the record companies should pay a fee to Apple. Without Apple how would people listen to their music??? The exec of Warner Brothers said just the other day that people are more loyal to their iPod than they are to any given artist. It only makes sense by your logic that without the iPod people wouldn't listen to music so the record companies should pay them?

No? Sound crazy? Well so does paying for the music twice, once when we actually buy the song and again when we buy a device to play the song on. Frickin' crazy.

There is no need to open iTunes and it isn't a monopoly because there are plenty of other choices out there. In fact, if you have a player from another manufacturer you can buy your music from dozens of different stores. Why do you need to buy from Apple? It just doesn't make sense that this is a problem for you, especially since you want to bring the evil Apple down.

Frank

Again, you are not paying for the music twice.

YOU NEVER ARE PAYING FOR THE MUSIC.  EVER.

You are purchasing a user license for THAT RECORDING.

Look, until you can demonstrate you understand essential facts, I am not responding further to you.

And, yet again, you have not stated why it is fair or not fair for Apple to share its revenue streams from hardware which are dependent upon others artistic creations and have devices and software that have no measures to ensure that there is a license for said content in the first place.

smurf people, what is wrong with you?

Do you think having OSX on your computer means you now part own OSX?

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-03 4:17 pm)

iThinkIam wrote:

I did not say that BrattBoy was causing anyone to lose money.  At some point, you w=may realize the you and Bratboy are not "everyone else."  That some of you think your personal examples matter or excuse the majorities behavior is not the point.

We all know that people are illegally downloading music and that this practice is not hurting Apple's sales of hardware.  Thusly, the hardware is being purchased instead of the media, and thus there should be a blanket royalty.

None of you have yet to respond to this point.  NONE.

Here's what you need to understand:  When communicating with others, it is imperative that words be chosen carefully.  If they are not, you're going to have a very difficult time getting your point across and will simply mystify others in the process.

You used the term "rip CDs."  You didn't mean "rip CDs."  What you meant was "illegally download MP3s."  Those two acts are not synonymous.  "Ripping CDs" is what someone who owns an iPod does with their legally purchased music in order to transfer it to their portable music player.

Do you now realize how it's possible that you've caused great confusion by failing to choose your words more carefully?

I understand it (not that the several people in this thread who you've accused of being ignorant don't also).  Took a few classes in law school on the subject, in fact.

iThinkIam wrote:

If you can tell me how you are getting your mp3 recordings without ripping CDs, I'm all ears.

I now officially have no smurfing clue as to what you're talking about.

Are you suggesting that the use rights in a CD do not (or should not) transfer to use of that recording on an MP3 player?