Well we have the strictest gun laws, now I guess we will have the strictest music laws.
Stupid NYS.
Stupid NYS.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New York and Connecticut Officials Investigate Apple Music for Possible Antitrust Violations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is your evidence that Apple made backroom deals to crush the competition with this music service? And what business model is Apple forcing anyone into? I currently use Spotify and have no plans to switch to Apple Music. They haven't forced me into anything. If you're going to make these claims provide evidence to back them up.
It's not that someone is looking into Apple - it's that someone is doing it the DAY AFTER it's introduced with no evidence.
Someone can go on a shooting spree with video-taped evidence, and the justice department doesn't work this quickly. So, obviously someone who has a bone to pick against Apple is behind this. THIS is why fanboys are upset, not 'just' that Apple is targeted.
I have no complaints with the government inquiring into company practices. I do wish however that companies would face penalties for releasing false rumors about a competitor.
The rumor came out awhile ago so it's not the day after. I'm actually happy the government acted so fast so the rumor would not linger on. Spotify and Pandora can't be too happy with the new music service
.
Last edited:
And yet Comcast is allowed to go on controlling Internet and media access in many communities, and the government seems completely fine with that. Go figure.
No evidence? Have you not been following the news for the past few weeks. News of Apple attempting to collude with labels to knock out Spotify's free tier is at least a month old.
Show me ONE news story about this.
Apple has been TALKING with labels, yes, but colluding? Where is there ANY evidence of this? Show me ONE thing that Apple has done to 'collude'.
Interesting... It's as though you're purporting to be an expert on the issue, and yet you articulated exactly zero structured or valid points, and instead managed to obtain the intellectual level of "unicorn feces."
Nice.
Yes, because record labels should have to give away their product for free. Otherwise they're being anti-competition. Record labels should be able to sell their product at any price they want. If it gets out of control, people won't buy it, and they'll move back to torrent. It's in everyone's best interest to have an affordable option out there that's easy to access and manage. It's crazy to think you're entitled to a free product.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you're entitled to a free product. It's about whether or not Apple abused its position with the record labels to harm a competitor.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Where were you or this kind of sentiment when the record labels wanted more flexible song pricing and Apple was holding tight to 99 cents per song? Back then it was Apple fighting the evil, greedy record companies apparently for our benefit. Where were you then? Funny how our views of about anything will shift around whatever benefits Apple.
The record labels control their content. If they were not getting what they wanted from the Spotify free tier they could kill it. The free tier is not a charity. It is ad-supported. Apparently Spotify is giving the labels enough revenue to motivate them to keep supporting Spotify free* offering.
This has nothing to do with forcing record labels to do anything. It's all about investigating whether Apple tried to flex it's muscles to motivate the labels to kill the free streaming music options so that Apple's paid streaming option would be more appealing. Using business influence to make something cost a lot more is generally BAD for us consumers. Eliminating competitive offerings to shore up corporate profitability is generally BAD for us consumers. Governments investigating such actions appears to be an example of the Gov trying to actually do something for us consumers... you know, like they did the Ebook debacle where Apple was found guilty of a very similar sequence of events that resulted in us consumers paying more for Ebooks than the model that was already in place.
Back then, people like you were also spinning that case to try to frame Amazon as the wrong-doer... that Amazon choosing to price books cheaper than where Apple wanted them priced was wrong, even if switching to Apple's want meant us consumers would pay more for the very same Ebooks. Apple was never wrong (around here) even when they were found guilty. Even then, the court system and laws were wrong for finding Apple guilty.
Based on rumor, this smells a whole lot like that Ebooks sequence. Nothing is proven yet but it's not just 2 states investigating the issue. And investigations does not automatically mean "guilty" but multiple investigations into any company does imply that there must be enough of something there to warrant all that time & effort. We won't know if Apple actually misbehaved or not for upwards of months or even years (just like it was with Ebooks) but, if they didn't break any laws, there's nothing to worry about here.
Last edited:
Well said. It's like people think they have a right to someone else's property at whatever price they would like to pay (if they would even pay), because they want it and they justify trying to coerce it from by saying it's moral because a majority voted for it. Then they call people who defend individual rights childish and idealistic because principles are incompatible with their impulsive knee-jerk delusions.
Frustrating as hell isn't it?
Apple has every right to hold at $0.99 if they want and the labels can leave if they want. There's no "fighting the evil record labels," if the record labels derive a net benefit from associating with Apple, then they'll stay. If they don't then they won't. They stayed. Apple benefited from the relationship. The records benefited from the relationship. I don't care what the perception may have been by other people, this is the pure reality of that situation.
Yep. So there goes the whole "They don't have the right to raise prices, or work with other companies in the field to raise prices together/Apple can't try to convince them to raise prices argument from the Attorney Generals.
Yeah, except forcing them not to raise prices together. Whether or not they actually would do this is irrelevant. The fact is that the government is standing over them making sure they don't do it, even if they wanted to, just as they are now up Apple's tail for allegedly trying to convince them to do so.
They have every moral right to try to do that, regardless of whether or not there is a piece of legislation saying they don't. Again. They don;t have to listen if they don't want to, and Apple has no right to force them to do it. The term "Flexing muscles" implies the ability to force them to do something against their will. Apple can't do that. They can try to convince, or influence the markets with their assets to try to achieve an outcome, but they have no right to force anyone to do anything. Ever.
So? The standard of moral law is "Whatever is best for the consumers"? Why don't we pass a law saying all iPhones must be free? How about all cell phones in general? Why not?
Because that would be evil. The only real definition of a moral law is a law that acts to secure the individual rights of the people within a government's boarders. That is the ONLY legitimate function of government. Any law that serves to act against that purpose is both evil, and illegitimate.
I don't want to go through the rest, I'm pretty busy..
No, they don't, and yes, they do have to listen. U.S. Federal and State Law trumps your made up "moral rights". Sorry buddy.
If Apple pressured the record companies to abandon ad-supported free streaming as a condition for signing on to Apple Music, then prosecutors would have it easy to prove that Apple abused its market power. It doesn't matter what you think about that, what your "moral rights" say, or even if you believe it wouldn't be abuse of market power. What matters is what U.S. antitrust law says.
It's not even a formal investigation at this stage. It's a couple of State Governments asking questions and being necessarily suspicious, given Apple's guilt in the eBook market.
I'm sure many people would disagree with your opinion.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or against me in all of that. Another poster tried to make a point that record labels should be able to charge whatever they want. I agree. It is THEIR content, not Apples or Spotify or Pandoras. My counter point was asking where was that sentiment when it was Apple fighting with the record labels to keep all singles at 99 cents? I wasn't arguing for or against Apple there- just pointing out how readily some of us flip flop based upon what's best for Apple.
As to "moral right" or "moral law", I made no such argument. We do operate in a capitalistic system. A goal of capitalism is to maximize profits but a benefit of capitalism working as it's supposed to work is that competition will drive prices down for consumers. Apple is free to price it's offerings however it wants. However, monopolistic-like practices of trying to flex their muscles to affect competitor offerings such that those competitors have little choice but to charge consumers more is very much anti-competitive. And that's why the Government gets involved (sometimes).
I appreciate your passionate defense of Apple. I wasn't trying to attack Apple, so no defense should be necessary. I do put us consumers above Apple. Apparently you do not. That's fine. In my view though, practices that drive up prices of competitor offerings to better support Apple's profitability goals are very BAD for us consumers. Apple should win in any market it takes on on the merits of it's own offerings... not by trying to manipulate what competitors can charge for similar services. I appreciate that you feel differently and/or see that differently.
Yes, "no evidence". First, as I recall reading, there was only rumour of Apple trying to force out ad-supported tiers. Second, the label(s) quoted in the articles denied those rumours.
So, the only evidence we have actually supports that this isn't happening.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Oh brother! In the 2nd paragraph you are referencing a pro-Apple rumor to prove it isn't happening but in the first paragraph you are denying a point against Apple because it is only a rumor.
And the labels have to deny such stuff, else they risk incriminating themselves for potential collusion AND/OR make a very important partner (Apple) unhappy for throwing them under a bus. "Deny, deny, deny" is a default PR strategy for any claims of wrongdoing. Most of the convicted criminals in jails will deny they did the crime too.. . even the worst of them when facing overwhelming evidence that only they could have done it.
What we do have right now is a number of state & federal governments digging in to see if those rumors- unfounded or not- have any merit. That much effort & time is not arbitrarily spent so they likely already have something sufficient to warrant such activities. What they are probably doing now is trying to figure out if they have enough to justify taking legal actions and potentially winning some judgement.
We also have a recent history of Apple being found guilty of similar practices in another kind of media (Ebooks). Apple was not innocent. They did not "Settle with no admission of wrongdoing". They took it to court and were found GUILTY. In the eyes of the law pair a recent guilty verdict with rumors of pretty similar business activities and it should at least breed suspicions worth taking a deeper look. If the rumors are true, it's a classic case of a Goliath engaging in anti-competitive behavior... a relatively easy victory showing the justice departments doing their jobs (well). If the rumors are false, they'll move on to something else and nothing will come of this.
And the labels have to deny such stuff, else they risk incriminating themselves for potential collusion AND/OR make a very important partner (Apple) unhappy for throwing them under a bus. "Deny, deny, deny" is a default PR strategy for any claims of wrongdoing. Most of the convicted criminals in jails will deny they did the crime too.. . even the worst of them when facing overwhelming evidence that only they could have done it.
What we do have right now is a number of state & federal governments digging in to see if those rumors- unfounded or not- have any merit. That much effort & time is not arbitrarily spent so they likely already have something sufficient to warrant such activities. What they are probably doing now is trying to figure out if they have enough to justify taking legal actions and potentially winning some judgement.
We also have a recent history of Apple being found guilty of similar practices in another kind of media (Ebooks). Apple was not innocent. They did not "Settle with no admission of wrongdoing". They took it to court and were found GUILTY. In the eyes of the law pair a recent guilty verdict with rumors of pretty similar business activities and it should at least breed suspicions worth taking a deeper look. If the rumors are true, it's a classic case of a Goliath engaging in anti-competitive behavior... a relatively easy victory showing the justice departments doing their jobs (well). If the rumors are false, they'll move on to something else and nothing will come of this.
Last edited:
They trump it in terms of force, not morality or rationality. Apple has every right to do what wants with its property and its speech, so long as they don't infringe on the individual rights of others. That's the meaning of the work their. It indicates possession and therefore, right control.
Your assumption is that Apple, or people in general derive their rights from their government. This is fundamentally impossible. Who put the government there? Individuals. what are politicians? People who, in this country, are elected by individuals. Government cannot be a source of rights, because it doesn't exist in nature. It's not a beginning, it is a result of the ingenuity of individuals. The source of the rights of governments is the individual, and the source of the individuals rights is the fact that they exist as a conscious, rational being. An individual's rights are inherent to their existence. The only legitimate function of government is to secure the rights with which individuals are born. Individuals delegate their right to be free of coercion to the government, and the function of government is to remove people who would initiate force from society. It's not to be the only entity is allowed to initiate force, or the only entity that is allowed to seize ownership/control of private companies for "the public good" or whatever. Individuals do not have the right to seize/control other people's property, therefore they do not have the right to delegate that right to a government they created to do it for them.
1. All laws are made up laws.
2. The only legitimate type of law is moral law. I don't have a right to get a majority of people on my side, and elect someone who would pass a law to kill you (or would you consider that moral/just?). No majority has that right, regardless of the law, and no majority has the right to tell Apple what it can or can't do with its property. It belongs to APPLE. NOT the people. Freedom of Speech is APPLE's RIGHT. NOT just when the people decide to permit it.
Again, not in terms of morality. The Anti-trust laws are some of the most evil laws the U.S. has ever come across. Reality and rationality trump bureaucratic/popular whim every time.
It's not an opinion, it's a statement of reality as viewed from an uncompromisingly rational standard of ethics. Many people are wrong.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Apparently because they are currently working against Apple. Only the laws that work for Apple and against Apple competitors are the good laws.
Last edited: