I think this article points out what so damn wrong with "journalism" today.
The fact Swift doesn't realize she's one of the reasons people would be drawn to a service her music is on is a bit nefarious. There's no damn way the little artists are going to benefit from any streaming service.
If the little fish didn't have to rely on the bigger fish, perhaps there would be plenty to celebrate, but reality sucks.
Secondly, Swift receives zero royalties from any streaming service. This should be obvious, but it's not. Her label will get the royalties, and the label is who will cut her a check.
Note the situation change now. Twice now, Taylor has attacked the wrong source of revenue. If anything, she should be calling out her label for allowing this, not Apple. Apple has nothing to do with this other than having to pay up front costs to license the music.
But the real kicker is how she's bitching about Apple when her own damn contracts do the same to everyone else who deals with her as an artist.
Photographers must give up all copyright control if Taylor is in the picture. Refuse? She has the right to destroy expensive equipment.
The sheer audacity she has to claim unfair treatment by Apple is just another example of entitlement by artists who are popular enough to make demands, forcing everyone to cower because their revenue will be affected.
Taylor Swift is the female version of Lars Ulrich.
Since the FCC also recently ruled states can't bar local municipal broadband builds, this ruling seems to coincide with the possible increase in competition from a city perspective, will change can occur.
As it stands now, PK is correct, but throw in municipal broadband, and the landscape changes significantly.
The reasoning behind the argument has nothing to do with the ruling, which is purposely designed to enforce the notion drivers are employees, which puts Uber/Lyft under federal guidelines to force them into spending more of their money for things such as health insurance (which I'm sure Uber/Lyft exceeds the 50 employee minimum).
With this expenditure, it's just a matter of time before the service goes belly up, especially if other states take the same actions.
That is the entire purpose of the ruling - to stop innovation.
Years ago, I was taught there were members of a society who despised how their government was working. When journalists tried to give the people of that society the corruption and violation of freedoms the government was imposing, they, too, were called out (if not executed).
Many started to realize these journalists were telling the truth. Fearing their lives and liberties, they huddled up and decided to bail on this utopia and settle a new one.
Soon, this utopia formed a new name, calling itself the United States of America.
Those who fail to learn from history are surely doomed to repeat it.
Anyone ever notice, regardless where in the world a person is, the more freedoms a person has to speak their minds, the more governments control that speech?
Democratic countries seem to be the worst, all the while pointing fingers how Communism is the worst. One of these days, someone will sit down and realize, "Hey, we're acting just like they are! Maybe we should scale back our own personal fears."
On second though, in looking at past history, this is obviously a task far too complicated for an intelligent species.
Oh dear! This post would likely put Techdirt in the line of fire... if it weren't in the US.
I remember the days I was forced to stay away from my television set because I'd fry from the inside out and go blind.
It didn't happen then, and I'm pretty confident a device much smaller and emitting less "radiation" will do any more harm than that old television of ours (the floor console, for those aging readers who fondly remember them).
I'm going to get this off my chest now, just so there's no confusion: I don't dislike you. What I dislike is this misconception of what Microsoft was intending to do as though it were a fact. Because as I read your opinions, I only see you failed to take the time to listen.
Microsoft never had the chance to confirm or deny what the automatic check in would do. The entire issue was blown out of proportion when rumors first hit that the new console would require an internet connection all day.
This was squashed when it was reported the internet was needed for a once-a-day check-in, but rather than wait and see, the gaming audience instantly went into the assumption mode of "games can't be played if check-in failed."
Here's what Microsoft did say: -Gamers could install a game and play it without the need of the disk in the tray. DRM prevents this
-Gamers could buy a game and give it to another user. DRM prevents this
-Gamers could share their game with anyone on their friends list, even if the friend doesn't have the game. DRM prevents this
-Gamers will have the opportunity to sell back their games. DRM prevents this
Everything spouted by angry gamers made the internet connection the focal point without actually listening to a goddamn word said.
The kicker: To this day, the XBox One requires an internet connection before the console can be used.
It's unfortunate we will never know how Microsoft intended to distribute the new digital system, all because "required" was translated to "can't do shit" without justification.
To be fair, there are some valid complaints about a console which doesn't have full-time (everyday, not 24 hours) access to the internet, but Microsoft was never given a chance to address those points.
That's the issue I have with your position, Tim. Now you "sarcastically" (hard to tell with you) state Steam is finally giving refunds, but this is still shit compared to what Microsoft had in store.
Come back to us when Steam announces the ability to sell back those old games people don't play anymore.
All in all, this backlash ultimately ended with one result: MICROSOFT RESTORED THE DRM IT EFFECTIVELY TRIED TO REMOVE.
All it asked for in return was a daily check in.
Good luck trying to get a refund from Steam without an internet connection, DRM or not. If Steam can't wipe that game from your PC, you're shit out of luck on a refund.
PS: In regard to the "high" remark (was that sarcastic too?), I don't think anyone expected full price for the game. Hell, when was this ever possible? Even if the most it gave back was $10, that's still better than nothing.
Because once you take the game out of the equation, all you have is a service that credits and sells and Microsoft (et al) would still come ahead.
This isn't news to celebrate, though I can see why some people would feel differently.
As a reminder, the article was written by Timothy Geigner, the same person who ripped into Microsoft about its XBox One console, decrying how "it's DRM". Steam uses DRM, so I'd like to know what gives between the differences of its use.
What most people didn't hear, because they were too busy screaming at the top of their lungs with fingers firmly placed in their ears, was Microsoft was going to allow people to sell their digital games.
When this becomes news, and I don't care what service offers it first, then we'll have something to celebrate.
Getting a refund on a digital purchase should have been a day-0 option. It should have been known by service providers and game publishers not every purchase is worth the price (but shovelware sells!).
Alas, looks like we'll have to wait again until someone breaks the de-facto service SoP and offers users the ability to sell their purchased digital goods.