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)
"Apple's employees"? Nope. Foxconn.
Holy crap! Do you think I don't know that?? THAT'S my point.
FALSE INFORMATION GETS RECORDED AS FACT.
If Apple doesn't fight back (refute) this publicly distributed claim by Tidal, then tough shit for them.
Either the accusation is true, or Apple is a pussy for not refuting it and suing them for slander. (liable would / could come later, silversquonk)
If tidal got a letter they can publish it. If not Apple should sue for slander.
Not if the content of the letter is covered by an existing NDA.
I think what happened is this (and I'm completely making this up, so feel free to disagree):
Drake has a deal with Apple. The terms are covered by NDA, but they agreed to it in good faith. Drake is giving Apple Music exclusives, and Apple paid for it.
Then Drake goes off to do this thing with Lil Wayne. and Tidal streams it, and Apple has to respond. Apple paid for an exclusive, and if Drake breaks the deal, there will be a lawsuit. Future makes a decision to shut down the live stream, and Tidal concocts some bullshit about "artistry." And the media hears "Apple" and makes it front page news. Drakegate!
The "bad blood" from Tidal might stem from this tidbit: Drake walked away from a partnership stake in Tidal to join Apple (source). Drake left at the altar on the day of his marriage to Tidal for Apple.
There you go. My baseless contribution to this conspiracy theory. I think that if there was basis for a lawsuit, and Future pulled the plug, then at least Future thought there was merit in (or at least grounds for) a lawsuit. Do I think there was a letter? Apple Legal probably had to send one to make it official, yes. And probably phone calls from Jimmy Iovine. But that doesn't make it as nefarious as Tidal wants you all to think.
This thread will be a litmus test: who among you is inclined to think so negatively about Apple, that you would believe Tidal's spin about "interfering with artistry"?
Class 101 - Don't start your reply with Lol. _________ sucks!
The sad thing is that the Tidal music service is actually pretty awesome, it's just too bad that the new owner has done nothing but attract negative attention to the service.
REAL class 101- don't criticize someone just for stating truth-only to comeback with your own support of that which was rightly criticized.
And if Tidal we're classy, they'd have simply mentioned they don't have the rights to stream (because you know, tidal sucks) instead of using Apple as the very first word. Lol
So sign up for Apple music and ditch tidal.
Common sense 101- todal= suckage. Apple music= hotness.
Oh, come on! What an ignorant statement, show me a business that isn't about making money. It is likely that Apple's profits on it's new music service in the first year will far exceed all of the profits that Jay Z or Tidal have ever realized. Tidal's service offers plenty to enjoy, especially to those who can appreciate good sound quality (cue the theorists that say you can't hear the difference between 256 AAC and anything higher).
There is quite sufficient evidence that Apple focuses on the customers more than their money. That doesn't necessarily mean they care a lot more, but they at least focus on giving customers the best.
Oh, come on! What an ignorant statement, show me a business that isn't about making money. It is likely that Apple's profits on it's new music service in the first year will far exceed all of the profits that Jay Z or Tidal have ever realized. Tidal's service offers plenty to enjoy, especially to those who can appreciate good sound quality (cue the theorists that say you can't hear the difference between 256 AAC and anything higher).
Who needs god damn science when your placebo super-ears see the diff hey... Oh, well...
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.
If Apple did sue “trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press” AI’s forums would be almost empty.
If Apple did sue “trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press” AI’s forums would be almost empty.
Not the same thing. Tidal is claiming Apple did this, not they suspect or believe Apple did this, or that they heard Apple did this. I get on [@]sog35[/@] for the way he words his opinions and pipe dreams as facts, and then when the obvious rumour pops up again he then write something along the lines of, "Told you so!" despite no actual product, service, or even a word from Apple ever being uttered.
To clarify, if Tidal had written, "We suspect Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for this inconvenience," instead of "Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for big brother's inconvenience," it would be a different situation. They either know something they can prove (or at least provable which could get the other party to make an issue of it), or they are lying. Sure, maybe they were told this or they simply believed it to be the case which makes that simply being a mistake, not a lie, but only when it comes to their thought process; their statement, however, would be a bald-faced lie.
Does anyone actually believe that Apple would be so tone deaf as to interfere with ANY artist participating in a benefit concert, especially one for victims of Hurricane Katrina? Seriously?
Even if there was any question of contractual obligations, one call to Apple, i.e., Eddie Cue, by Future would have clarified it. I'm guessing he never even needed to make that call.
Does anyone actually believe that Apple would be so tone deaf as to interfere with ANY artist participating in a benefit concert, especially one for victims of Hurricane Katrina? Seriously?
To me it seems ridiculous to think of any major company preventing a benefit concert.
If Apple did sue “trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press” AI’s forums would be almost empty.
Not the same thing. Tidal is claiming Apple did this, not they suspect or believe Apple did this, or that they heard Apple did this. I get on @sog35 for the way he words his opinions and pipe dreams as facts, and then when the obvious rumour pops up again he then write something along the lines of, "Told you so!" despite no actual product, service, or even a word from Apple ever being uttered.
To clarify, if Tidal had written, "We suspect Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for thisinconvenience," instead of "Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for big brother's inconvenience," it would be a different situation. They either know something they can prove (or at least provable which could get the other party to make an issue of it), or they are lying. Sure, maybe they were told this or they simply believed it to be the case which makes that simply being a mistake, not a lie, but only when it comes to their thought process; their statement, however, would be a bald-faced lie.
I doubt Apple will bother suing unless Tidal pushes the issue. If Tidal did have emails with Apple threatening legal action, they could have shown them as proof and avoided the negative blowback. The message they put up on their stream is anything but classy, and probably did more to damage their reputation than anything. If I were an artist I would be wary of dealing with them. I'd think, "If I cancelled a performance, would they issue a statement such as 'This artist decided they were too good for Tidal. Sorry, some people won't let you see them perform. Now enjoy this artist that isn't a prima donna.'" They could have put up something without the loaded terms "Big Brother" and biased "interfering with Artistry" and just put up: "Sorry. Apple will not allow a live stream of this artist's performance. We will resume streaming after the performance" and have been done with it.
If there was a demand, it could have been a contractual obligation—exclusivity clause on new music for X amount of time—if there is any merit to the claim.
As of now, Tidal looks bad, and any interest I might have had in checking it out (which I was actually going of before this) went out the door with this sort of unprofessional conduct. It’s as if they haven't learned airing disputes (like dirty laundry) sour people on enjoying a show—and it was their own show! Bonehead move, IMO.
Comments
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)
"Apple's employees"? Nope. Foxconn.
Holy crap! Do you think I don't know that?? THAT'S my point.
FALSE INFORMATION GETS RECORDED AS FACT.
If Apple doesn't fight back (refute) this publicly distributed claim by Tidal, then tough shit for them.
Either the accusation is true, or Apple is a pussy for not refuting it and suing them for slander. (liable would / could come later, silversquonk)
If tidal got a letter they can publish it. If not Apple should sue for slander.
Not if the content of the letter is covered by an existing NDA.
I think what happened is this (and I'm completely making this up, so feel free to disagree):
Drake has a deal with Apple. The terms are covered by NDA, but they agreed to it in good faith. Drake is giving Apple Music exclusives, and Apple paid for it.
Then Drake goes off to do this thing with Lil Wayne. and Tidal streams it, and Apple has to respond. Apple paid for an exclusive, and if Drake breaks the deal, there will be a lawsuit. Future makes a decision to shut down the live stream, and Tidal concocts some bullshit about "artistry." And the media hears "Apple" and makes it front page news. Drakegate!
The "bad blood" from Tidal might stem from this tidbit: Drake walked away from a partnership stake in Tidal to join Apple (source). Drake left at the altar on the day of his marriage to Tidal for Apple.
There you go. My baseless contribution to this conspiracy theory. I think that if there was basis for a lawsuit, and Future pulled the plug, then at least Future thought there was merit in (or at least grounds for) a lawsuit. Do I think there was a letter? Apple Legal probably had to send one to make it official, yes. And probably phone calls from Jimmy Iovine. But that doesn't make it as nefarious as Tidal wants you all to think.
This thread will be a litmus test: who among you is inclined to think so negatively about Apple, that you would believe Tidal's spin about "interfering with artistry"?
REAL class 101- don't criticize someone just for stating truth-only to comeback with your own support of that which was rightly criticized.
And if Tidal we're classy, they'd have simply mentioned they don't have the rights to stream (because you know, tidal sucks) instead of using Apple as the very first word. Lol
So sign up for Apple music and ditch tidal.
Common sense 101- todal= suckage. Apple music= hotness.
For goodness sake man! Choose hotness!
Because... Tidal sucks.
There is quite sufficient evidence that Apple focuses on the customers more than their money. That doesn't necessarily mean they care a lot more, but they at least focus on giving customers the best.
Oh, come on! What an ignorant statement, show me a business that isn't about making money. It is likely that Apple's profits on it's new music service in the first year will far exceed all of the profits that Jay Z or Tidal have ever realized. Tidal's service offers plenty to enjoy, especially to those who can appreciate good sound quality (cue the theorists that say you can't hear the difference between 256 AAC and anything higher).
Who needs god damn science when your placebo super-ears see the diff hey... Oh, well...
3 people cared.
2) Interesting criticisms from other artists… which predate Apple Music.
[LIST][*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)#Criticism
[/LIST]
Semantic police, at your service
Apple should start by suing Tidal for slander.
Yeah, that's some serious libel... but since it apparently backfired, Apple probably won't sue as that could start its own negative press.
JayZ and Tidal decided to lie and turn the loss of Drake's stream to a TROLLING opportunity to advertise itself through a negative story about Apple.
JayZ was probably jealous of Dr Dre getting billions from Apple buying Beats rather than buying JayZ's Tidal.
Unfortunately, they stabbed their own customers in the back while doing so. They should simply have paid Drake more to get his stream.
I would love Tidal to die an ignominious death.
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.
If Apple did sue “trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press” AI’s forums would be almost empty.
Not the same thing. Tidal is claiming Apple did this, not they suspect or believe Apple did this, or that they heard Apple did this. I get on [@]sog35[/@] for the way he words his opinions and pipe dreams as facts, and then when the obvious rumour pops up again he then write something along the lines of, "Told you so!" despite no actual product, service, or even a word from Apple ever being uttered.
To clarify, if Tidal had written, "We suspect Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for this inconvenience," instead of "Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for big brother's inconvenience," it would be a different situation. They either know something they can prove (or at least provable which could get the other party to make an issue of it), or they are lying. Sure, maybe they were told this or they simply believed it to be the case which makes that simply being a mistake, not a lie, but only when it comes to their thought process; their statement, however, would be a bald-faced lie.
Does anyone actually believe that Apple would be so tone deaf as to interfere with ANY artist participating in a benefit concert, especially one for victims of Hurricane Katrina? Seriously?
Even if there was any question of contractual obligations, one call to Apple, i.e., Eddie Cue, by Future would have clarified it. I'm guessing he never even needed to make that call.
To me it seems ridiculous to think of any major company preventing a benefit concert.
AFAIK, the concert continued with Drake's performance. Only the streaming on Tidal stopped.
If Apple did sue “trolls posting BS, FUD, and lies in forums or the tech press” AI’s forums would be almost empty.
Not the same thing. Tidal is claiming Apple did this, not they suspect or believe Apple did this, or that they heard Apple did this. I get on @sog35 for the way he words his opinions and pipe dreams as facts, and then when the obvious rumour pops up again he then write something along the lines of, "Told you so!" despite no actual product, service, or even a word from Apple ever being uttered.
To clarify, if Tidal had written, "We suspect Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for thisinconvenience," instead of "Apple is interfering with artistry and will not allow this artist to stream. Sorry for big brother's inconvenience," it would be a different situation. They either know something they can prove (or at least provable which could get the other party to make an issue of it), or they are lying. Sure, maybe they were told this or they simply believed it to be the case which makes that simply being a mistake, not a lie, but only when it comes to their thought process; their statement, however, would be a bald-faced lie.
Bingo-on-the-nosey.
If there was a demand, it could have been a contractual obligation—exclusivity clause on new music for X amount of time—if there is any merit to the claim.
As of now, Tidal looks bad, and any interest I might have had in checking it out (which I was actually going of before this) went out the door with this sort of unprofessional conduct. It’s as if they haven't learned airing disputes (like dirty laundry) sour people on enjoying a show—and it was their own show! Bonehead move, IMO.