If you look at their YouTube page it would appear that they are licensing their music and in all likelihood receiving pay for play from YouTube/Google. It may be free to you but not to YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/user/bjmworldEDIT: A number of folks here are probably confused by Youtube and/or Vimeo and assume that because they listened to a song for free it must be stolen from the rights holder. That's not accurate. YouTube has had a copyright protection mechanism in...
Up until yesterday Taylor Swift's music was a talking point for some members here when discussing why Apple Music was better than Spotify. Then it isn't one anymore. Taylor Swift is to now to be dissed I guess? There should at least be some consistency.
It's not that type of privacy report. It has to do with how the companies state they handle the five different standards the EFF is using with regard to government requests."The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Fifth Annual Reporton Online Service Providers’Privacy and Transparency Practices RegardingGovernment Access to User Data"
The law that Apple violated is Article 18 of Taiwan's Fair Trade Act. Third party buyers, ie the telecoms in this case, have the right to determine their own selling prices for products purchased from the manufacturer or supplier.Other companies like Sammy and HTC were also investigated for the same illegal condition of sale and weren't found to be attempting to control prices. Apple can appeal of course and may.