5 ms·
Frankly if Apple refuses to sell your music because you refuse to allow them to earn off of you for their free trial then Apple is guilty of coercion and needs
by Shivetya 11y ago
Frankly if Apple refuses to sell your music because you refuse to allow them to earn off of you for their free trial then Apple is guilty of coercion and needs to be slapped down.
I would cheer to see a suit against them for this action. Free trials are supposed to be at the expense of the company peddling a service, not the people who provide the goods the service profits on.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- GuiA 11y agohttp://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/19/apple-not-coercing-indie-artists-apple-music/ http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/19/apple-not-coercing-indie...
- Dylan16807 11y agoHow is it different from any boring publishing contract that gives the publisher price control? Refusing to sell someone's product is not generally considered duress.
- ticviking 11y agoFrankly. If that is what the contract says it's what you agreed to. Sell elsewhere if you don't like it. Taylor Swift is actually in a position to do something about that. Instead she whined because she didn't like a contract after it was signed.
- _red 11y agoActually, you're wrong, she's not "whining after the fact" Taylor Swift did not agree to the contract. Hence why she is withholding her music. Unlike many other artist, she holds the right to negotiate her streaming contracts directly.
- ticviking 11y agoI know it's been days, do you have a source on that? It radically changes the situation and my opinion.
- _red 11y agoWell its sorta self apparent. I mean, if she had signed away control of her streaming rights, how would she ever been able to "pull her songs" off of iTunes (or Spotify as she did the previous year). She would've been in violation of a contract otherwise, and would've need to seek remedy via the courts.
- s73v3r 11y agoWhy the Hell should such a contract be able to exist?