Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:10:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

e.g. Assume arguendo that nospam was a musical artist. He/she certainly
not want his/music music used in anti Apple ads. Similarly, I would not
want any of my photo work used to benefit skinheads.

i know what my next photoshop project is going to be.

You are going to show it to us? .. you are?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:10:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.

Not so.

yes so.

Apple can use her music more or less as much as they like, as long as
she gets paid for it. What they do with it after they get it is their
business, but the artists should still get paid.

they are.

Now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:10:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

This was, at best, and "Ooops, she's probably right" rather than a greedy
business being "shocked into submission" by an artist.

There's plenty of things Apple has done wrong, this is not one of them.

yes it is.

"Yes it is" what? "Yes it is one "of things that Apple has done
wrong"?

I don't think that is quite what you meant to say.

it is.

Just for the record, you are saying that Apple has done something
wrong?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| Last I saw, it still wasn't settled
|
| It was settled yesterday, so "last you saw" isn't very current.
|

Apple said they'll pay. Everyone celebrated.
So far I haven't seen where Apple has actually
made a specific offer as to what they'll pay per
stream, nor have I seen confirmation that TS
has accepted their offer. If you have a link
saying it's definitely a done deal I'd be interested
to see that.

| That's not quite the story. Last I saw, it still
| wasn't settled, but the gist of it is that Apple
| was trying to use their muscle to force musicians
| to shoulder the financial risk for Apple's marketing
| plan by not getting paid for 3 months.
|
| nope

Ah, you're just the man I've been looking for.
Please send me all photos you've taken. I plan
to give them away for 3 months online. After
that time, if I can get anyone to buy a copy
I'll send you part of my profits.....

It's OK. No need to thank me. I'm just a naturally
generous and warm-hearted guy who loves
artistic people and wants them to thrive. I
think different.

On 6/22/2015 11:59 PM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 10:53:14 UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
In article , RichA wrote:

Scum.
Apple caves after Taylor Swift threatens to pull album

So, Apple had a business plan to offer their service for free and during that
time period wouldn't pay royalties to artist, several artists complained and
Apple changed their plan.

Yeah, sure are scums.



--
Sandman

Give an organization like Apple an inch, they'll take a mile. Now it's all sweetness and light from them. I'm surprised they didn't call it "a big misunderstanding." Like some politicians scurrying around pretending to have been quoted out of context.


Dpreview's gain is our loss.

--
PeterN

On 6/23/2015 3:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you work and expect to get paid then you are a greedy b*tch too.

swift is getting paid, ad more than she otherwise would have.


If there is to be a change in roaylty payments, said change must be
agreed to by all parties.

and?


Typically, there is yet another context related snips.

Apple knows whats best.

--
PeterN

On 6/23/2015 3:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

e.g. Assume arguendo that nospam was a musical artist. He/she certainly
not want his/music music used in anti Apple ads. Similarly, I would not
want any of my photo work used to benefit skinheads.

i know what my next photoshop project is going to be.

And how does your response relate to my comment.

--
PeterN

On 6/23/2015 4:06 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:10:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

e.g. Assume arguendo that nospam was a musical artist. He/she certainly
not want his/music music used in anti Apple ads. Similarly, I would not
want any of my photo work used to benefit skinheads.

i know what my next photoshop project is going to be.

You are going to show it to us? .. you are?


Don't hold your breath.

--
PeterN

On 6/23/2015 9:41 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| That's not quite the story. Last I saw, it still
| wasn't settled, but the gist of it is that Apple
| was trying to use their muscle to force musicians
| to shoulder the financial risk for Apple's marketing
| plan by not getting paid for 3 months.
|
| nope

Ah, you're just the man I've been looking for.
Please send me all photos you've taken. I plan
to give them away for 3 months online. After
that time, if I can get anyone to buy a copy
I'll send you part of my profits.....

It's OK. No need to thank me. I'm just a naturally
generous and warm-hearted guy who loves
artistic people and wants them to thrive. I
think different.



Your sarcasm will go over his head. Don't forget, we are not worthy of
seeing his images.

--
PeterN