5 ms·
It's a bit of an insult to the original artist, in my view. When I create something, it's an expression of my personality, and I the choices I make reflect my a
by StavrosK 5y ago
It's a bit of an insult to the original artist, in my view. When I create something, it's an expression of my personality, and I the choices I make reflect my aesthetic. If you take it and remix it, that's fine, but don't put my name on it, it's "Song X (Apple Atmos Remix)" now.
- voisin 5y agoPresumably all the rights holders have agreed to the “remix” without this demand. Surely if you create your own music you can tell Apple to go to hell and keep it in the version you created. Worst case they drop all non-Atmos files in the future and you become de-platformed. Doubtful that will happen given the size of their library.
- StavrosK 5y agoYes, but I have a suspicion the rights holder in this case is the label and not the composer/performer.
- voisin 5y agoThat’s almost certainly the case, and something the composer/performer signed up for as part of the deal. So what’s the conflict with someone who owns rights to some thing allowing someone else to do things with that thing? It just feels like a massive stretch to act like these poor performers are being taken advantage of with Atmos remixing.