Apple vs Tidal: Tidal faces $20M lawsuit over Drake’s Apple deal #lilweezyanafest Update:Tidal Lied?

[Beerus]

I'll ask again. What do you think Nike would do if Jordan wanted to play on the Adidas benefit ball game?


They'd shut that shyt the fukk down. You have to be petty in business. You can't let ANYONE fukk with your brand

Let's go the other way. They let him do it. Maybe 5k people in the world sign up to see him. That's not a lot.

But next month spotify wants to do a benefit. Then Pepsi wants him to do one. Then Pusha T wants him to do one.... Etc etc


You can't be mad at Apple, sprite, cash money for saying HELL NO. They PAID to have you exclusive and only promote for them. Now they paid you millions. And you just gonna operate and promote and help out our comp. HELP them.


Regardless of PERSONALS feelings. BUSINESS and this contract states you won't be doing it. Now if I let it get out that I pay people AND don't hold them to contracts..... What you think my business dealings gonna be like? What you think the next 50 artists gonna try and pull? How much of that money you think they gonna give me back to say sorry?









You crush the comp. completely. Totally. Into the ground. Then take their followers as yours and grow bigger

Big bank take little bank. Plain and simple. You don't operate like this, and you'll never own an apple or Nike or major company making millions

Y'all trying to be nice out in these business streets brehs? shyt ain't no different than the drug game. Kill the competition, take their fiends, never let your workers sell off their drugs

Holy shyt these nikkas soft and retarded man
Like their small ass brains don't get why Apple was right

 

[MIAlien]

I'll ask again. What do you think Nike would do if Jordan wanted to play on the Adidas benefit ball game?


They'd shut that shyt the fukk down. You have to be petty in business. You can't let ANYONE fukk with your brand

Let's go the other way. They let him do it. Maybe 5k people in the world sign up to see him. That's not a lot.

But next month spotify wants to do a benefit. Then Pepsi wants him to do one. Then Pusha T wants him to do one.... Etc etc


You can't be mad at Apple, sprite, cash money for saying HELL NO. They PAID to have you exclusive and only promote for them. Now they paid you millions. And you just gonna operate and promote and help out our comp. HELP them.


Regardless of PERSONALS feelings. BUSINESS and this contract states you won't be doing it. Now if I let it get out that I pay people AND don't hold them to contracts..... What you think my business dealings gonna be like? What you think the next 50 artists gonna try and pull? How much of that money you think they gonna give me back to say sorry?









You crush the comp. completely. Totally. Into the ground. Then take their followers as yours and grow bigger

Big bank take little bank. Plain and simple. You don't operate like this, and you'll never own an apple or Nike or major company making millions

Y'all trying to be nice out in these business streets brehs? shyt ain't no different than the drug game. Kill the competition, take their fiends, never let your workers sell off their drugs

They have that power and it's their right to use it. I've seen Nike attempt to block their athletes from APPEARING at charity basketball games where Under Armour supplied gear after Nike refused to do so. But it's not a business move because it's charity. And that slippery slope argument is bullshyt.

It's petty in the grand scheme of things, and that's my only point as it relates to Apple. But Apple goes beyond the bounds of business ethics and does things like pay the press to write hit pieces and negative articles, and create fake Twitter accounts and hashtags too. So they don't mind being petty, as long as they can win on all fronts. It's just another case of their corporate CAC entitlement.

Them having Drake's manager lie about it and try to make Tidal look bad in the process proves how petty it is and how bad it makes them look to block a charity event from streaming. If it's strictly a business move, they should own it and not try to hide their hand.

But business allows you to do petty shyt and frame it as business. That's the beauty of the corporate world.

 

[OG Talk]

So did Drake sign a 360 type deal with Apple where they control all the rights to his content, likeness and appearances ?

If so then 19 million seems like a low ball offer....

James Harden just got $200 million from Adidas (about 20x what they gave Kanye)

These superstar rappers stay gettin long dikked by corporations...

 

[Edub]

All you bytch ass nikkas on the forum with the corny "corporate thuggin" shyt ya'll be on...this is what the fukk we real hip hop ninjas are talkin about...so now Drake and Weezy can't perform together cuz of cac lawyers ...I'll say it again, listen to the REAL artists and stop making billions for cacs who listen to Jimmy Buffet and could give a fukk about hip hop. All u Drake stans are(just had to throw it in there)

 

[Edub]

On a side note...I guarantee Jay-z made sure it was rushed to the media that Apple took this stance...but he still needs to chop that price...real talk.

 

[Icantspell]

They have that power and it's their right to use it. I've seen Nike attempt to block their athletes from APPEARING at charity basketball games where Under Armour supplied gear after Nike refused to do so. But it's not a business move because it's charity. And that slippery slope argument is bullshyt.

It's petty in the grand scheme of things, and that's my only point as it relates to Apple. But Apple goes beyond the bounds of business ethics and does things like pay the press to write hit pieces and negative articles, and create fake Twitter accounts and hashtags too. So they don't mind being petty, as long as they can win on all fronts. It's just another case of their corporate CAC entitlement.

Them having Drake's manager lie about it and try to make Tidal look bad in the process proves how petty it is and how bad it makes them look to block a charity event from streaming. If it's strictly a business move, they should own it and not try to hide their hand.

But business allows you to do petty shyt and frame it as business. That's the beauty of the corporate world.

petty is charging to stream a charity event llil nikka :lbj:

 

[Splash]

Fine print brehs

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

SMH @ nikkas defending Apple

So did Drake sign a 360 type deal with Apple where they control all the rights to his content, likeness and appearances ?

If so then 19 million seems like a low ball offer....

James Harden just got $200 million from Adidas (about 20x what they gave Kanye)

These superstar rappers stay gettin long dikked by corporations...

Ya, if that's the case seems like a terrible deal

 

[Giselle]

Tidal should sign an exclusive deal with Quentin Miller and let him perform all the Drake songs he's accredited with

Old Roc with Dame at the head would do something like his

He wouldn't be able to perform those songs. He didn't make the beat. & knowing how drake is, drake probably owns all of the rights to those lyrics, so he probably wouldn't even be able to perform the lyrics that he wrote.

You know nothing about business. You don't get EU investigations for business ethics. I'm nowhere near in my feelings I just think it's beyond corny to file a 20 million dollar lawsuit over a charity event. When Tidal streamed Prince's Baltimore charity, they did it for free and gave people access even if they did not have a subscription. That's how I ended up checking out their service. But Apple will be Apple.

Be a grown man who can't recognize marketing/promotion tools brehs.

LOL, like you just said that free prince concert made you check out that service and still didn't realize that was the whole purpose of exclusively streaming it.

Damn, sign your name on a line and you can't even hop on stage with ya woe
This rap ish is a straight BUSINESS

Yes he can, tidal just can't stream it.

This is weird and it doesn't make sense. It not like this is a Drake concert: he went to a Tidal event not the other way round so Apple should be filing a lawsuit against Drake not Tidal. In any event, this is actually bad PR for Apple not Tidal. Those claiming that Tidal started the exclusive nonsense, that's not correct. Apple has been doing the exclusive thing for years and is generally not a company that is progressive. why they have followers in 2015 is still a mystery but these things eventually come to an end. Take for example the whole cellphone charger nonsense. Everyone else agreed to have the same head but they didn't want to join in.

Drake went to a Wayne event that tidal was trying to stream as an exclusive. Wayne has been doing this festival way before tidal. Apple should be suing Tidal if they streamed it. Drake performing isn't the problem, tidal trying to stream it as an exclusive is the problem. Tidal was the one who started with the exclusive content from top artist.

I'm not fukking with tidal but this is the wackiest business decision I've seen in a while. I don't even understand can't he perform at the Grammys either? Or Coachella? Cause they stream shyt too.


c00n.



Edit the only site that have posted this is page6, lol, obviously fake.
fukk the source though, it's the coli.

He can perform anywhere, streaming services just can't stream it as something exclusive on their site like tidal was doing. They would need apple's permission. The grammy's comes on tv an isn't an exclusive. I don't think cochella streams exclusively either.

It's obviously not fake since Tidal cut the stream off during Drake's performance.

Apparently apple had nothing to do with it. It was drake and his peoples

Really?
Where did you read that at?

 

[bouncy]

Should've went with Tidal, Drake!

It's not all about the money, freedom is the most important

Let this be a lesson to ya

 

[No1]

GIbbersh

You sound like a bird brain. Read what I said again. It was obviously a marketing tactic, and goodwill move. Second, no Apple "shouldn't" be suing for anything. Being able to sue for something and it being prudent are two different things. No attorney would advise Apple to bring that type of suit in this situation. I'm sick and tired of people with zero business acumen trying to play lawyer on here. If it was a wise choice they would not be running away from that angle. Third, Drake's manager no sense with what he just said. "Were not sure about the aesthetics from a business standpoint." That literally makes no sense. So Drake's man Wayne got up there and decided to be complicit in a lie. Or is it more likely that the guy with a 19 million dollar deal was told to give the company good PR and deflect because of the backlash? Use your brain, have you never worked anywhere near the business world? Last, your whole point about coachella and other stuff is stupid because you have no idea what you're talking about. You never start off an argument with "I think." If those people were good with those events being streamed everywhere then they would not be taking down all streams that are not theirs. They want the attention and revenue to go to them. You don't fukk with those places because they provide promotion for the artists on your platform and you would anger the fans. They are also not your direct competitor.

It has nothing to do with "exclusivity" it has everything to do with business sense. I hope you get that right after you get your common sense.

 

[ORDER_66]

This shyt is fukking disgusting.... Drake needs to address the bullshyt be a fukking man for once and call out whoever on this bullshyt...

 

[ORDER_66]

*dbl post

 

[Teko]

He wouldn't be able to perform those songs. He didn't make the beat. & knowing how drake is, drake probably owns all of the rights to those lyrics, so he probably wouldn't even be able to perform the lyrics that he wrote.



Be a grown man who can't recognize marketing/promotion tools brehs.
LOL, like you just said that free prince concert made you check out that service and still didn't realize that was the whole purpose of exclusively streaming it.




Yes he can, tidal just can't stream it.


Drake went to a Wayne event that tidal was trying to stream as an exclusive. Wayne has been doing this festival way before tidal. Apple should be suing Tidal if they streamed it. Drake performing isn't the problem, tidal trying to stream it as an exclusive is the problem. Tidal was the one who started with the exclusive content from top artist.


He can perform anywhere, streaming services just can't stream it as something exclusive on their site like tidal was doing. They would need apple's permission. The grammy's comes on tv an isn't an exclusive. I don't think cochella streams exclusively either.

It's obviously not fake since Tidal cut the stream off during Drake's performance.

Really?
Where did you read that at?

Most streams or even TV broadcasts are exclusive so I don't think that exclusivity is the issue here. The Grammy don't show on any TV channel that wants to show it hence they are exclusive. It's simply that Drake is a party to a deal with Apple where he needs to clear any known broadcasts/ streaming with them. Tidal is not a party to Drake's deal with Apple so it's up to Drake to bring up the issue. Remember that deals like this are not registered at a publicly viewable Deeds Registry so someone who isn't party to that wouldn't have a clue of what is in it or whether the provisions are even lawful or legally enforceable.

The story is overblown and I suspect that Drake brought up the issue to Wayne's organisers and it was agreed then/ upfront that the Drake performances won't be part of the stream. It must have been a condition of him performing at the event not that Apple approached an unrelated party to not stream. The $19mn suit story is just nonsense.

Dr Dre has a deal with Apple but his album is on Tidal. All of Drake's songs and albums are also on Tidal. Those aren't Drake deals, his music is owned by Warner Music Group.

Exclusivity doesn't seem to be the issue here but Tidal didn't start the exclusive thing. Apple has been doing it for years where albums were available exclusively on iTunes before they were on other platforms. I can think of a lot of times when this happened but you can Google it yourself. Apple just doesn't like it when the exclusive is not with them and they embark on antagonistic behavior when that happens but other platforms just carry on with business as usual.

 

[Giselle]

You sound like a bird brain. Read what I said again. It was obviously a marketing tactic, and goodwill move.

You are the one who sounds like a "bird braid". Me and many others have pointed out in this thread. Multiple times LOL

Second, no Apple "shouldn't" be suing for anything. Being able to sue for something and it being prudent are two different things. No attorney would advise Apple to bring that type of suit in this situation. I'm sick and tired of people with zero business acumen trying to play lawyer on here. If it was a wise choice they would not be running away from that angle. Third, Drake's manager no sense with what he just said. "Were not sure about the aesthetics from a business standpoint." That literally makes no sense. So Drake's man Wayne got up there and decided to be complicit in a lie. Or is it more likely that the guy with a 19 million dollar deal was told to give the company good PR and deflect because of the backlash? Use your brain, have you never worked anywhere near the business world?

You idiot, you should go back and read. I wasn't even adressing you except for one line in that post. I never said that they should sue. I knew no one was getting sued since yesterday when drake's part was not streamed. I was telling the other guy who said "Apple should be filing a lawsuit against Drake" that Drake would not be the one to blame or sue in that situation, Tidal would be at fault if they streamed it.

Last, your whole point about coachella and other stuff is stupid because you have no idea what you're talking about. You never start off an argument with "I think." If those people were good with those events being streamed everywhere then they would not be taking down all streams that are not theirs. They want the attention and revenue to go to them. You don't fukk with those places because they provide promotion for the artists on your platform and you would anger the fans. They are also not your direct competitor.

It has nothing to do with "exclusivity" it has everything to do with business sense. I hope you get that right after you get your common sense.

You are making yourself look even more dumb and you're on here lying. I see exactly why you deleted my original post.
1. I didn't start anything of with "I think" Go back and read.
2. I wasn't arguing with him, you are the only one in here trying to argue becasue you're upset that multiple people in here showed you how dumb you are.

Maybe not dumb, but are clearly not business savvy like you are pretending to be. You have also shown that you don't know how to read and comprehend well. You should work on that.