1. Storage for 50MB is less than $0.001 per month. So, even if you're storing and backing up every every version of an app, and they update a very high 50 times per year, and they're storing on 12 different locales, that's less than $1 per year for the typical app.

2. "Global distribution" is a one time cost per app update at approximately $0.006 per 50MB per server. For 12 updates per year spread across 12 servers, that's less than $1 per year total. Over 75% of apps are updated less than once per month.

3. Retries, re-downloads and updates are already insignificant transfer costs, per my original comment. Even if you want to attribute 90% of those downloads to being updates from the same set of users, and keep the lifetime revenue per user at a very low estimate of $1, Apple is still taking $6,000 for approximately $105 of hosting costs.

All in all, that matches my original estimate of $100 per 200k downloads for transfer and $5 for server fees. So, as I said, hosting isn't relevant to the conversation, at all.

Specifically, the transfer cost to download a 50MB app is approximately $0.0005. That's 200,000 downloads per $100. Even assuming a low average revenue of $1 per download, that's a $60,000 take for Apple for maybe $105 worth of hosting.

That's not to say there aren't other costs involved in running the store. But we definitely shouldn't be pretending that hosting is even relevant to the conversation. Hosting costs haven't been relevant for over a decade.

They've selectively[1] searched for multiple Palestine hashtags, which all show up under the same base hashtag[2], but then count all of the hashtags as separate data points -- and then compares them to a singular Israel hashtag that includes an emoji, which won't include most results regarding Israel. What's worse, is that including a Palestine hashtag doesn't remotely guarantee that the post is pro-Palestine or anti-Israel, and the same is true for posts including Israel hashtags not necessarily being pro-Israel, which can also be seen in [2]. In reality, the #palestine hashtag is used in pro-Israel posts all the time, so the sweeping generalizations made by Anthony Goldbloom aren't based on any legitimate statistical methodology.

Instead of echoing Goldbloom's manipulation of data as factual, it should be used as an example of pro-Israel disinformation and entirely backs the article's claim. In fact, even Goldbloom admits that he made mistakes[3], and the other graph was made by him and not the company who conducted the survey, who actually disputes his claim.

I think it could even be argued that your comment, without any supporting facts other than a very pro-Israel Twitter pundit who already debunked himself, is contributing to the misinformation discussed in the article, even if you're doing so unintentionally.

[1] https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602/...

[2] https://www.tiktok.com/@kituuuub/video/7298048299905355041?q...

[3] https://www.semafor.com/article/12/07/2023/tiktok-antisemiti...

When everyone knows hosting costs equate to a fraction of a penny per sale, you'll need to strongly justify that 5% fee. You'll need to pay ~3.5% in PRO fees just to have public playback on the site -- even if there's not a single cover song among the uploaded albums -- so let both the artist and fan know where that money is going and why.

A huge problem with the "pay what you want" model is that the host and PRO still get to middleman what is fundamentally a tip from the fan. Find a way to implement a secondary form for tips that go straight to an account the artist owns, without making the purchase form more complicated, and you'll have an attractive and unique feature.

However, Fourthwall already has a polished version of your product roadmap and charges less for it, albeit without the music-specific theming, and even Patreon recently implemented direct digital sales. You're facing an uphill battle against entrenched and VC-backed products.

Very convincing argument. Also, that's maybe the one part of this discussion that can't be debated. Possession of illegally obtained property, intellectual or otherwise, is illegal. Always has been, always will be. It's bizarre for you to be claiming otherwise.

> While copyright violation is often metaphorically (or hyperbolicly) referred to as stealing [...]

You are making a pedantic argument about the term "stealing," which is annoyingly pointless given the rest of that sentence (which you conveniently didn't quote) acknowledges the debate about the term. However, there's no debate to be had. The courts have clarified that violating intellectual property is still a denial of owed compensation (theft), but instead prefer the term "infringe" to make clear the distinction between violating physical rights (criminal) and violating intellectual rights (civil).

It's still a violation of copyright to be in possession of works obtained via illegal reproduction. You have zero fair use protections for illegally reproduced content. You are still breaking the law. You are still stealing via denial of compensation. The courts have already clarified all of this. Your pedantry doesn't change any of that.

That question is irrelevant in a discussion about legality, because it doesn't matter who physically made the copy at the time of transfer. It only matters if the first party has the legal rights to distribute it, which they don't. Since you are knowingly taking possession of copyrighted property that they don't have the rights to, then you have now violated the copyright by obtaining an illegal reproduction.

> In a physical analogy, if someone is selling bootleg DVDs on the street, I don't think anyone ever got busted for being a customer.

Just because you don't get arrested for purchasing a bootleg DVD, doesn't make it legal. Not all illegal things involve arrest or prosecution. Lots of illegal things can only result in civil lawsuits. This is one of those things. The reason the seller of the bootleg DVDs can be arrested, is because the cities where bootleg sales are most common have laws specifically targeting the advertisement and sale of copyrighted works that were reproduced illegally. If you buy one, you're still violating the copyright and the MPAA could file a lawsuit if they had any evidence of your purchase and felt it was worth their time.

Chapter 28: Theft https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039_199...

Chapter 2, Section 12: Reproduction https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1961/en19610404.pdf

The means of procurement matters. If they are in possession of copyrighted material because someone without the proper rights gave it to them illegally, then the possession itself is also illegal. It's illegal to own knowingly stolen property in all 50 US states and most countries, and while we could argue to the end of days about whether copying a file truly qualifies as stealing, the legal precedents are very clear on the matter.

Everyone who was sued by the RIAA was done so for possessing the music in a publicly accessible method. Distribution was never actually proven in any of the cases (including the high profile losses). Defendants who argued that accessibility does not qualify as distribution actually won their cases. Most who argued against the validity of the evidence acquisition also won their cases.

Well that's not true at all, given that millions of households use continuous plug-in air fresheners all day, every day. Multiple industries exist solely around scenting the air. Your analogy just doesn't hold up to reality.

Many thousands of live streaming musicians have had no trouble going from $0 to $5k/mo. You're welcome to check out Twitch or TikTok any time for evidence of this.