I didn't downvote you, but I suspect you're being downvoted because there's a growing suspicion in these comments that this startup was breaking the law.

Large companies are more regulated in that regard: Apple can't deploy a questionably-legal music streaming service as easily as a startup can. Startups can afford to do this because the risk is that they shut down, the founders walk away basically intact because of the corporate veil, and nobody else is affected. Apple doesn't have that option.

If Apple were forced to work with the startup, the startup would have to adopt the same risk profile and approach to the law as Apple. Arguably, that's exactly what happened here, through Apple calling attention to them.

(Note that I'm not expressing an opinion on whether the law is correct. It is what it is. I hear good reasons to believe that Aereo was wrongly decided, but they still took a legally risky approach and lost at the Supreme Court, and the option for an orderly shutdown via bankruptcy existed because they were a startup doing nothing else.)

> Apple can't deploy a questionably-legal music streaming service as easily as a startup can.

There is an illustration of that. Big companies using a lot of contractors normally go through intermediary contractor agencies simply to avoid the risk that the contractor become legally recognized as employee. The cost of those intermediaries can be as much as an extra 20% of the contractor rate - that's significant.

As a small startup, initially Uber could operate directly with contractor driver and save that amount. Now they are a big company and the news in California illustrate the kind of risk the intermediary agencies are shielding big business from.

>there's a growing suspicion in these comments that this startup was breaking the law

It is very fascinating to me still how the threads in HN tend to always reveal a much larger picture than the tone of the original piece. These discussions often have more insight than the articles that everyone is making popular!

I mean, dude, seriously... what?

by no means I am an apple fan, never owned any of their device (mainly because how they treat their customers, but that's completely different topic) and still living, but - case is clear simple here. Apple paid owners of copyright agreed amount, and startup was stealing this content without anyone's approval. I don't care who gave list to whom, etc. Justice has been done. If you don't like copyright laws, that's again another story altogether. No rocket science...

1. Apple was not a monopoly at that time. 2. How do you rigorously tell, which company is big and which is small? 3. This is a competitive market and ethics is not something that should be regulated. If people have a problem with a company's ethics, they should just stop using their products.

Was Apple ever a monopoly? And just being a monopoly is not illegal.

No, I don't think they ever were. I just wanted to be precise in my previous comment and reference the time the article is set in.

Yes, there are legal monopolies, of course. But not if it's a retail product.

Of course you can have a monopoly on a retail product, how else could anyone ever introduce a new type of product to the market?

No. Monopoly is a form of market organization. Having a uniquely specific product doesn't make it a monopoly. If I introduce a new five-wheeled bicycle to the market, that doesn't mean I have a monopoly on the bicycle market.

No, monopoly is about being the only one doing something, not about "marketing organization".

If you invent the first bicycle and nobody else makes them then you do indeed have a monopoly on the bicycle market. The difference is just that we define "bicycle" as the market, not "5-wheeled bicycle".

Monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly, etc., are all forms of market organization. This is textbook.

[Update] Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organization#Market...

or a pentacycle :)

https://horshamphotography.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/img_5...

This is the best thing ever.

Ethics and moral is regulated in some countries, because it's part of the law. USA are so retarded on that point, that's all.

And people who buys Apple products doesn't care what could do that company just because they are inspired by all the ads and hype around their products.

I'd argue that Apple has done more positive and socially responsible thing than many other big (and small) companies. And generally people buy Apple products because they are great products. You can only fool once with advertising, however people keep using Apple.

You mean like, who is allowed to marry, who has the right to vote, and so on? Yeah, those countries are the pinnacle of human progress.

And furthermore, how people who are too retarded to see through the ads and hype are competent enough to enact moral-based laws?

Did Apple 'make' Warner sue anyone? Remember, the labels held most of the cards.. They controlled the content. If Apple had all of this great power over the labels, why did it take so long to get the Beatles? As far as 'more regulation' -- I don't like the idea of the government picking winners and losers. The government uses regulation as a hammer with which to crush companies that don't tie a certain line. Excessive regulation also adds tremendous costs to a company and therefore the consumers. Do you know how big of a legal department is needed just to comply with government regulations? It's a non-trivial cost. I am not saying regulation is bad; I am saying that beyond Sherman, the government ought not be too heavily involved in regulating competition because then only the politically connected or heavy contributors get permission to thrive. Carlos Slim, for example didn't get rich because of a lack of regulation in Mexican telecoms, he became a billionaire because of regulation: Mexico gave him essentially a multi-year head start over potential competitors using regulatory power. The result, Mexican telecom service is highly expensive and of marginal quality. With less regulation other companies could have started offering services sooner and competition would have driven market innovation.

> If Apple had all of this great power over the labels, why did it take so long to get the Beatles?

That was a trademark dispute, see Apple vs. Apple.

Actually it was a dispute between EMI and Apple Corps (not invoking Apple Computer Inc) over royalties that held up the Beatles music licensing.

Oh, I see. Thanks. When was it settled? Apple vs. Apple was settled in 2007. I would be surprised if the trademark dispute had no bearing on the licensing dispute internally, but I guess we can't know.

It was in April 2007, details are unsurprisingly confidential but "mutually acceptable"

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/emi-apple-corps-deal-go...