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

In article , Eric Stevens
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?

he'll use it for his supposed lawsuit.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

sure. they do lots of things wrong.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

in other words, it's the record labels who are stiffing artists.

Yes I heard this side of the 'debate' on This Week in Tech in that it's the
record labels where the problem was and not with Apple as Apple doesn't pay
the artists it pays the record labels who pay the artists.

that is correct.

Not that I fully understanbd it I admit, and I wasn;t concentrating as much
as I should because I was 4 rungs up a ladder nailing some plasterboard to my
cieling so had others things on my mind while listening to the podcast.

sounds dangerous.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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.

there are numerous links describing the situation. try reading one or
two.

In article , 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.....

not the same thing at all.

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.

you do think different. that much is clear.

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.

and?

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.

whoosh.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

you certainly are not.

On 6/23/2015 11:02 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

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.

there are numerous links describing the situation. try reading one or
two.


That response creates a presumption that the link doesn't exist.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

there are numerous links describing the situation. try reading one or
two.


That response creates a presumption that the link doesn't exist.

nope