Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
Mac Newsforums, a part of the
08-22-2011, 06:41 PM #1
Judge's Ruling Gets iCloud and Other Cloud Based Music Services Off the Label Teet
Apple, Amazon, Google, and anyone else who has or plans to release a digitil music locker service should kiss U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley lll.
In the case EMI against MP3tunes Pauley ruled:
If enabling a party to download infringing material was sufficient to create liability, then even search engines like Google or Yahoo! would be without DMCA protection. In that case, the DMCA’s purpose — innovation and growth of internet services — would be undermined.
While Pauley did rule MP3tunes was liable for infringing on some 350 songs through another side sideload.com, the two major rulings mentioned above legitimizes the iCloud business model and paves the way for a future of cloud based music storage and players.
Record labels lose again. Mainly because they refuse to innovate and hold a death grip on their dying revenue streams.
Last edited by Phillip Swanson; 08-22-2011 at 09:50 PM.
08-22-2011, 09:52 PM #2
All these record labels need to learn to do is to just learn to sell to online services at a higher price and then they can make more money! I use pandora and have a paid subscription for my music and I love it, as for those who want to steal music, 1) it's illegal but 2) it will just make it so the artist doesn't want to make more music beside they don't get as much money for it so you lose out in the end!
08-23-2011, 04:27 AM #3
As far as I am concerned I am aware that an artist enjoys the money they make from the talent that they have, however, all the artists I listen to are smaller artists just in the UK (other than a few others) and make it pretty obvious where they came from and would continue to make music whether they were still there now or getting increasingly popular as is there situation.
So in my opinion, if an artist actually enjoys to make music, who should care whether half of there listeners are through piracy, I feel that people like this receive to high of an income anyway considering all they do is sing.
08-23-2011, 04:34 AM #4
Yay! For apple?
About the article there seems to be a typho in the first para. Shouldn't it be "digital"? It's typed as digitll.
08-23-2011, 09:45 AM #5
2) these artists make millions and millions of dollars as well as free clothes and products by just wearing them they are advertising for those companies. Artists don't make money off the labels as much as they make in concerts, advertising and other stuff.
08-23-2011, 10:47 AM #6
The artist most hurt in piracy aren't the million dollar ones, it's the new ones that own their own label and work their own content. Everyone has a right to create & sell to make a living. I have nothing against people who download, but the decision has nothing to do with how much money the artist makes nor how they make it. We do it because simply because we want the music we want and know we can get it for free. No more, no less
Last edited by trek-life; 08-23-2011 at 10:54 AM.
08-23-2011, 11:01 AM #7
Why don't you go and email the specific artist that you want to download their stuff for free and ask them how they feel about it. If you refuse to do that then I suspect it is another justification leaking out because you know what they would say.
People go to prison for doing things that are not "consensual." And there are a lot of things that you can do that are not "consensual."
Either way, I am a person that knew I was not in integrity when I had free music in my possession. I don't do it anymore because I raised my standards. And the fastest way I have learned to change my life is to raise my standards. With my experience, when I make excuses about little things, then I eventually make excuses with big things.
The way you do anything, is the way you do everything.
PS - you can choose to attack small pieces of my message, however the overall message is based upon principle, not circumstance or opinion. You can't break the Higher Law, you can only break yourself against the law.
Last edited by HigherLaws; 08-23-2011 at 11:45 AM. Reason: missed a word - "You can't break the Higher Law, you can only break yourself against the law." Cecil B Demil
08-23-2011, 11:10 AM #8
..."all they do is sing."
It is their talent, they work hard to refine so people want their music.
Obviously, people do want their music.
Should they be "impoverished musicians"?
I have Pandora. I pay less than pennies on the dollar to find great music that I never knew about.
For example, I put in one favorite of all time, for me, and I found 25 new favorites.
Perhaps more to the point: I don't steal anything. For one thing, it makes me a thief.
08-23-2011, 11:47 AM #9
I download music all the time. Is it stealing? Is it wrong? Don't know and don't care. To me its the same as borrowing a CD or DVD from someone and making a copy of it. But I know...no one has ever done that
Last edited by jasvncnt10; 08-23-2011 at 12:05 PM.
08-23-2011, 12:10 PM #10
Actually, what should be done is eliminate the record labels and have all artists publish directly on things like iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, etc.
- Cut out the middle man
- Reduce prices
- Increase revenue for the artist, who usually only sees about 10% of the profit under the current model. This new setup would put the profits in the hands of the artists, where it belongs, not some corporation.
08-23-2011, 12:18 PM #11
And because you have "higher standards" doesn't make me or anyone else who do download stuff for free any lesser than you.
08-23-2011, 12:28 PM #12
I totally agree.
I would like to see RIAA put out-of-business. RIAA served their purpose in their era.
RIAA charges "per use fees" for radio and, yes, even for restaurants that should be considered "free advertising".
The internet has created a great "new era" for direct-sales for musicians.
However, thieves-on-internet steal their work.
Those website, forum, and app "donations" are big-money, in millions of dollars.
It looks like "kids" but one "app" alone bragged they made half a million dollars in one month.
jasvcnt10, Is it "wrong"?
That said, I am on P2P right-this-minute getting a 70's TV-series. I use it to find the episodes I really like, then purchase only those episodes. Then, I delete it.
Does that make me a thief?
I didn't say anything about morality. I am talking about crime.
Maybe you reside in a country where it isn't a crime? The Netherlands? Hong Kong?
I do know the music and movie downloads are big money, and, yes, it is stealing.
The courts ruled "jailbreaking" is not a crime.
My iPod Touch is mine. I paid for it.
It should be criminal for Apple "updates" to deliberately interfere with my iPod Touch.
iTunes "updates" "lost" all the music videos, tv episodes and movies I purchased on iTunes.
And, yes, I "backed them up". They no longer "import." I have nothing.
I will not purchase music videos, tv episodes and movies on iTunes, anymore.
Last edited by geekgrrl; 08-23-2011 at 12:47 PM.
08-23-2011, 01:08 PM #13
08-23-2011, 02:06 PM #14
[QUOTE=...I feel that people like this receive to high of an income anyway considering all they do is sing.[/QUOTE]
If it's so simple why aren't you out there doing it? Or are you unable to perform at a level equal to, or better than, these people?
When you have a talent that places you in a class where others are WILLING to pay you to do so then that MIGHT be why they are able to earn as much as they do. The larger their fanbase, the greater their renumeration.
What you sound like is someone who is bitter and jealous.
Make your own mark on the world but don't sit there and try to justify your refusal to pay for something because you think someone else doesn't deserve the money. If they don't deserve the money why do you want their art? If it's worth stealing maybe you should think about how much it's worth to them. You don't have a RIGHT to the property of others whether you think they earn too much or not.
I'm not going to sit here and say I've never downloaded a song or video, I'm not a liar, but, I do pay for the ones I keep and have the bluray collection and music collection to prove it.
I believe an artist deserves to get paid for the level of talent they have. That is purely subjective as well but not a judgement across the board.
Same is said if athletes and actors as well but only those who can do what they do get paid what they get paid. It's the real world.
08-23-2011, 02:11 PM #15
wow, I cant believe some of the comments I'm reading. some of you saying its OK to pirate music and artists make enough money anyway and record labels are the bad guys for not embracing technology.
Some of you are the same looney people who hoot and cheer every time apple sues someone for "copying" "steeling" "infringement" etc etc.
08-23-2011, 02:19 PM #16
The RIAA is passing through "crumbs" to the artists.
If artists got a bigger share, I would praise the RIAA.