I think the best response from Apple would be to ignore Tidal completely and instead announce a lossless tier of Apple Music for an extra $5 for a single user and an extra $10 for a family account.
Errrrrrrr …Yes that is exactly how it works. Or maybe you are too young to remember Antennagate, or that Apple's employees routinely commit suicide, or any other of the falsehoods that have been leveled at Apple, and yet, that they have allowed to stick in the mind of public opinion.
But this this time, this is a hard and fast example of a specific charge (false?) distributed to the mass public, by a corporation.
If Apple doesn't sue for slander. then Apple deserves exactly what they get.
(Then again, maybe you just didn't understand my OP)
Er … still no, Bob.
And dragging irrelevant bits of history into the discussion won't hide the fact that your argument – and I use that term very loosely – collapsed at the first line.
Ignoring the fact that antennae-gate was overblown, and the fact that workers at Foxconn aren't actually employed by Apple, and the fact that Apple has done more to improve their conditions than most other companies who also contract Foxconn, let's stick to the discussion in hand shall we?
In legal terms, the onus is on Tidal to prove that they are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, the onus is not on Apple to prove that they are telling the truth because they're not the ones making the accusation. That's how the law is supposed to work, and this helps protects companies and individuals from folk with an irrational axe to grind.
Drake’s decision not to participate in Tidal’s live stream of the Lil Weezyana Festival was precisely that — Drake’s decision. And sources familiar with the situation tell BuzzFeed News that Apple did not threaten Tidal with any legal action whatsoever — let alone one with $20 million in liabilities attached to it. “No one even knew this was going on until the Post piece hit,” one of the sources said, adding that it’s not even within Apple’s power to file such a suit.
And as I mentioned earlier:
Quote:
“The decision to not have Drake participate in the Tidal steam has nothing to do with Apple or Drake’s deal,” Drake’s manager Future the Prince told BuzzFeed News. “Point blank, 100%. I made a business decision. Apple doesn’t have the power to stop us from being part of a live stream. The only people that have the power to do that are Cash Money and Universal, and they’re our partners.”
And as to why Future didn't want the stream to carry Drake:
Quote:
As for the rationale for withholding Drake’s performance from the live stream of a benefit concert, Future insisted it was related to Drake’s image — not his business deals. “We wanted to make sure the stream represented us in the right way, and we didn’t have much insight into what they were doing,” he said. “Aesthetics and quality are important to us and we didn’t have any control over that or time to investigate it. We were just there to participate in the benefit.”
So unless Tidal comes forward with evidence to the contrary, then this is nothing more than a publicity stunt that backfired.
I know that's not what you want to hear, Bob, but there it is. Feel free to ignore the obvious if it makes your life easier.
Apple's lawyers do need to have a call-- the accusation is defamatory, and will stick (like all the other bullshit people have made up about apple over the years) unless Tidal retracts it. And Tidal should retract it because otherwise they could be facing serious liability.
Best to let it blow over. If Apple were to take legal action then they'd have months, years, of bad publicity,
Look at big bad Apple, bullying poor little Tidal.
This is nothing more than a poor attempt to goad Apple into a fight so that Tidal can look like the saviour of streaming.
Personally I think both Apple and Tidal will avoid commenting, or in the case of Tidal commenting further. I suspect there's some grain of truth in there somewhere but not perhaps anything cut and dried, so neither side will want to get into it much.
But it's not really 'grain of truth' thing though is it? Tidal says they have emails saying that Apple told them to stop.
Either these emails exist or they don't. There is no in-between.
Apple also doesn't sue the multitude of trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press. You cannot use Apple's absence of comment as proof of guilt.
And in this case, they would be playing right into Tidal's hands by responding.
Future has said that Tidal's version of events is untrue. It's up to Tidal to prove otherwise.
Did they say Apple sent them an email? Nope, not unless you've read something I haven't.
No, and neither did I.
Quote:
Tidal says they have emails saying that Apple told them to stop.
From the Buzzfeed article they said they have all the correspondence and email receipts relating to the blocked performance. Sounds to me as though they have an email telling them to cease and desist.
If they weren't from Apple then were they from Future? And if that's the case, what's this got to do with Apple?
As folk here have already pointed out, Apple does not have the power to block Drake's performance. He doesn't have a recording or an employment contract with them.
Quote:
We have all the email receipts and written correspondence that took place with said, blocked performance. That being said we choose to keep it classy.
Though I'm not sure what's classy about making serious allegation then refusing to back it up.
As folk here have already pointed out, Apple does not have the power to block Drake's performance. He doesn't have a recording or an employment contract with them.p.
I've never seen the details of Drake's agreement with Apple. Where did you find it?
I've never seen the details of Drake's agreement with Apple. Where did you find it?
Future's comment on Buzzfeed:
Quote:
“The decision to not have Drake participate in the Tidal steam has nothing to do with Apple or Drake’s deal,” Drake’s manager Future the Prince told BuzzFeed News. “Point blank, 100%. I made a business decision. Apple doesn’t have the power to stop us from being part of a live stream. The only people that have the power to do that are Cash Money and Universal, and they’re our partners.”
I haven't seen a contract, but I figured his management would know. Universal can stop him; not Apple.
I haven't seen a contract, but I figured his management would know.
Ah, more he said she said.
While they might not be able to block the streaming performance by Drake ( or maybe they can apply a little pressure) could they block the streaming performance of a particular song? IIRC Apple did a music video for him a few weeks back. Does Apple perhaps control the performance rights for that song for some period of time? That would a reason for the live stream being blocked wouldn't it? Future's very vague " I made a business decision" doesn't say much at all. A business decision based on what? Apple not liking it? A contractractual clause? He didn't think the benefit was professional enough for Drake? Got up on the wrong side of the bed?
While they might not be able to block the streaming performance by Drake ( or maybe they can apply a little pressure) could they block the streaming performance of a particular song? IIRC Apple did a music video for him a few weeks back. Does Apple perhaps control the performance rights for that song for some period of time? That would a reason for the live stream being blocked wouldn't it? Future's very vague " I made a business decision" doesn't say much at all. A business decision based on what? Apple not liking it? A contractractual clause? He didn't think the benefit was professional enough for Drake? Got up on the wrong side of the bed?
So Tidal needs to show the proof then; they've already made the accusation.
So Tidal needs to show the proof then; they've already made the accusation.
Withholding it now because, "classy", is BS.
Drake's manager already said they were solely responsive, that Apple had nothing to do with it, and questioned why Tidal would make that up or state it without verification. But let's ignore all of that for a moment to note that the only reason Tidal made any waves this weekend is because they mentioned Apple in the first place. I didn't even know Tidal was offering video streams.
Agreed, but "a business decision" is not any more revealing. It doesn't look like either side wants to go into detail.
I don't disagree with comments that Apple likely has contractual rights, but the question is whether Apple exercised those rights, as Tidal has accuse dApple; whether Future made a decision based on his understanding of contractual issues, or; whether that decision is as he stated, unrelated to contracts. I don't know the answer to any of those. I do know that Tidal crossed a threshold with an accusation, and will not back it up, leaving everything in an unsettled state.
Ultimately, we won't find out what the truth is unless someone leaks the emails, or the conversations between Future and Drake.
Errrrrrrr …Yes that is exactly how it works. Or maybe you are too young to remember Antennagate, or that Apple's employees routinely commit suicide, or any other of the falsehoods that have been leveled at Apple, and yet, that they have allowed to stick in the mind of public opinion.
But this this time, this is a hard and fast example of a specific charge (false?) distributed to the mass public, by a corporation.
If Apple doesn't sue for slander. then Apple deserves exactly what they get.
(Then again, maybe you just didn't understand my OP)
Er … still no, Bob.
And dragging irrelevant bits of history into the discussion won't hide the fact that your argument – and I use that term very loosely – collapsed at the first line.
Ignoring the fact that antennae-gate was overblown, and the fact that workers at Foxconn aren't actually employed by Apple, and the fact that Apple has done more to improve their conditions than most other companies who also contract Foxconn, let's stick to the discussion in hand shall we?
In legal terms, the onus is on Tidal to prove that they are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, the onus is not on Apple to prove that they are telling the truth because they're not the ones making the accusation. That's how the law is supposed to work, and this helps protects companies and individuals from folk with an irrational axe to grind.
Drake’s decision not to participate in Tidal’s live stream of the Lil Weezyana Festival was precisely that — Drake’s decision. And sources familiar with the situation tell BuzzFeed News that Apple did not threaten Tidal with any legal action whatsoever — let alone one with $20 million in liabilities attached to it. “No one even knew this was going on until the Post piece hit,” one of the sources said, adding that it’s not even within Apple’s power to file such a suit.
And as I mentioned earlier:
Quote:
“The decision to not have Drake participate in the Tidal steam has nothing to do with Apple or Drake’s deal,” Drake’s manager Future the Prince told BuzzFeed News. “Point blank, 100%. I made a business decision. Apple doesn’t have the power to stop us from being part of a live stream. The only people that have the power to do that are Cash Money and Universal, and they’re our partners.”
And as to why Future didn't want the stream to carry Drake:
Quote:
As for the rationale for withholding Drake’s performance from the live stream of a benefit concert, Future insisted it was related to Drake’s image — not his business deals. “We wanted to make sure the stream represented us in the right way, and we didn’t have much insight into what they were doing,” he said. “Aesthetics and quality are important to us and we didn’t have any control over that or time to investigate it. We were just there to participate in the benefit.”
So unless Tidal comes forward with evidence to the contrary, then this is nothing more than a publicity stunt that backfired.
I know that's not what you want to hear, Bob, but there it is. Feel free to ignore the obvious if it makes your life easier.
I'll assume that english is not your native language. You missed every point (actually there was only one). Aw, never mind.
But please feel free to respond one last time with another epically long winded, fact deficient post.
I'll assume that english is not your native language. You missed every point (actually there was only one). Aw, never mind.
But please feel free to respond one last time with another epically long<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> winded</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">, fact deficient post.</span>
I reckon people read the first line or two of posts and get mad. Maybe boldify the "falsehoods" sentence so they get it.
Comments
I think the best response from Apple would be to ignore Tidal completely and instead announce a lossless tier of Apple Music for an extra $5 for a single user and an extra $10 for a family account.
That's not a grammar correction, it's a semantic correction.
Semantic police, at your service
Isn't semantics a subset of grammar? But perhaps we should both just 'move away, nothing to see here', which is rather self-referential!
Errrrrrrr …Yes that is exactly how it works. Or maybe you are too young to remember Antennagate, or that Apple's employees routinely commit suicide, or any other of the falsehoods that have been leveled at Apple, and yet, that they have allowed to stick in the mind of public opinion.
But this this time, this is a hard and fast example of a specific charge (false?) distributed to the mass public, by a corporation.
If Apple doesn't sue for slander. then Apple deserves exactly what they get.
(Then again, maybe you just didn't understand my OP)
Er … still no, Bob.
And dragging irrelevant bits of history into the discussion won't hide the fact that your argument – and I use that term very loosely – collapsed at the first line.
Ignoring the fact that antennae-gate was overblown, and the fact that workers at Foxconn aren't actually employed by Apple, and the fact that Apple has done more to improve their conditions than most other companies who also contract Foxconn, let's stick to the discussion in hand shall we?
In legal terms, the onus is on Tidal to prove that they are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, the onus is not on Apple to prove that they are telling the truth because they're not the ones making the accusation. That's how the law is supposed to work, and this helps protects companies and individuals from folk with an irrational axe to grind.
Drake's people have made it even clearer that Apple has nothing to do with it:
And as I mentioned earlier:
And as to why Future didn't want the stream to carry Drake:
As for the rationale for withholding Drake’s performance from the live stream of a benefit concert, Future insisted it was related to Drake’s image — not his business deals. “We wanted to make sure the stream represented us in the right way, and we didn’t have much insight into what they were doing,” he said. “Aesthetics and quality are important to us and we didn’t have any control over that or time to investigate it. We were just there to participate in the benefit.”
So unless Tidal comes forward with evidence to the contrary, then this is nothing more than a publicity stunt that backfired.
I know that's not what you want to hear, Bob, but there it is. Feel free to ignore the obvious if it makes your life easier.
Best to let it blow over. If Apple were to take legal action then they'd have months, years, of bad publicity,
Look at big bad Apple, bullying poor little Tidal.
This is nothing more than a poor attempt to goad Apple into a fight so that Tidal can look like the saviour of streaming.
But it's not really 'grain of truth' thing though is it? Tidal says they have emails saying that Apple told them to stop.
Either these emails exist or they don't. There is no in-between.
Tidal needs to produce the emails.
Apple also doesn't sue the multitude of trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press. You cannot use Apple's absence of comment as proof of guilt.
And in this case, they would be playing right into Tidal's hands by responding.
Future has said that Tidal's version of events is untrue. It's up to Tidal to prove otherwise.
Did they say Apple sent them an email? Nope, not unless you've read something I haven't.
No, and neither did I.
From the Buzzfeed article they said they have all the correspondence and email receipts relating to the blocked performance. Sounds to me as though they have an email telling them to cease and desist.
If they weren't from Apple then were they from Future? And if that's the case, what's this got to do with Apple?
As folk here have already pointed out, Apple does not have the power to block Drake's performance. He doesn't have a recording or an employment contract with them.
Though I'm not sure what's classy about making serious allegation then refusing to back it up.
I've never seen the details of Drake's agreement with Apple. Where did you find it?
Future's comment on Buzzfeed:
I haven't seen a contract, but I figured his management would know. Universal can stop him; not Apple.
While they might not be able to block the streaming performance by Drake ( or maybe they can apply a little pressure) could they block the streaming performance of a particular song? IIRC Apple did a music video for him a few weeks back. Does Apple perhaps control the performance rights for that song for some period of time? That would a reason for the live stream being blocked wouldn't it? Future's very vague " I made a business decision" doesn't say much at all. A business decision based on what? Apple not liking it? A contractractual clause? He didn't think the benefit was professional enough for Drake? Got up on the wrong side of the bed?
"Apple's employees"? Nope. Foxconn.
He was pointing out falsehoods!
Ah, more he said she said.
While they might not be able to block the streaming performance by Drake ( or maybe they can apply a little pressure) could they block the streaming performance of a particular song? IIRC Apple did a music video for him a few weeks back. Does Apple perhaps control the performance rights for that song for some period of time? That would a reason for the live stream being blocked wouldn't it? Future's very vague " I made a business decision" doesn't say much at all. A business decision based on what? Apple not liking it? A contractractual clause? He didn't think the benefit was professional enough for Drake? Got up on the wrong side of the bed?
So Tidal needs to show the proof then; they've already made the accusation.
Withholding it now because, "classy", is BS.
Sorry I'm naive about these things but how did Apple interfere? was it a DDoS attack?
Drake's manager already said they were solely responsive, that Apple had nothing to do with it, and questioned why Tidal would make that up or state it without verification. But let's ignore all of that for a moment to note that the only reason Tidal made any waves this weekend is because they mentioned Apple in the first place. I didn't even know Tidal was offering video streams.
I believe Tidal's claim is that it use their clout and some iron clad contract to prevent Drake's stream from being aired.
Agreed, but "a business decision" is not any more revealing. It doesn't look like either side wants to go into detail.
I don't disagree with comments that Apple likely has contractual rights, but the question is whether Apple exercised those rights, as Tidal has accuse dApple; whether Future made a decision based on his understanding of contractual issues, or; whether that decision is as he stated, unrelated to contracts. I don't know the answer to any of those. I do know that Tidal crossed a threshold with an accusation, and will not back it up, leaving everything in an unsettled state.
Ultimately, we won't find out what the truth is unless someone leaks the emails, or the conversations between Future and Drake.
Errrrrrrr …Yes that is exactly how it works. Or maybe you are too young to remember Antennagate, or that Apple's employees routinely commit suicide, or any other of the falsehoods that have been leveled at Apple, and yet, that they have allowed to stick in the mind of public opinion.
But this this time, this is a hard and fast example of a specific charge (false?) distributed to the mass public, by a corporation.
If Apple doesn't sue for slander. then Apple deserves exactly what they get.
(Then again, maybe you just didn't understand my OP)
Er … still no, Bob.
And dragging irrelevant bits of history into the discussion won't hide the fact that your argument – and I use that term very loosely – collapsed at the first line.
Ignoring the fact that antennae-gate was overblown, and the fact that workers at Foxconn aren't actually employed by Apple, and the fact that Apple has done more to improve their conditions than most other companies who also contract Foxconn, let's stick to the discussion in hand shall we?
In legal terms, the onus is on Tidal to prove that they are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, the onus is not on Apple to prove that they are telling the truth because they're not the ones making the accusation. That's how the law is supposed to work, and this helps protects companies and individuals from folk with an irrational axe to grind.
Drake's people have made it even clearer that Apple has nothing to do with it:
And as I mentioned earlier:
And as to why Future didn't want the stream to carry Drake:
As for the rationale for withholding Drake’s performance from the live stream of a benefit concert, Future insisted it was related to Drake’s image — not his business deals. “We wanted to make sure the stream represented us in the right way, and we didn’t have much insight into what they were doing,” he said. “Aesthetics and quality are important to us and we didn’t have any control over that or time to investigate it. We were just there to participate in the benefit.”
So unless Tidal comes forward with evidence to the contrary, then this is nothing more than a publicity stunt that backfired.
I know that's not what you want to hear, Bob, but there it is. Feel free to ignore the obvious if it makes your life easier.
I'll assume that english is not your native language. You missed every point (actually there was only one). Aw, never mind.
But please feel free to respond one last time with another epically long winded, fact deficient post.
I reckon people read the first line or two of posts and get mad. Maybe boldify the "falsehoods" sentence so they get it.