Trying to get an artist’s latest album nowadays is like playing a game of musical chairs with streaming music services’ subscriptions.

For example if you want Taylor Swift’s 1989 album, forget about trying to stream it on Spotify, you need to head over to Apple Music in order to “Shake it Off.” Now let’s say you then wanted to watch Rihanna’s pre-release of her latest “Kiss it Better” music video or wanted to anxiously stalk Beyoncé’s highly awaited album release, well then you’d need a subscription to her hubby Jay Z’s subscription service Tidal.

The promise of exclusivity from these sites/apps is so powerful in fact, that it has managed to convince many money-conscious millennials to forego their beloved free versions, for monthly paid access.

So when Kanye declared to consumers that his 7th solo studio album would appear exclusively on Tidal, some Yeezy fans shelled out the $9.99 monthly fee no questions asked, and easily doubled Tidal’s subscribers from 1 million to 2.5 million almost overnight.

My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be for sale… You can only get it on Tidal.

— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016

Tidal quickly became the most downloaded app in the App Store, and Tidal reported that the album was streamed 250 million times in the first 10 days of its release.

The only problem is, “The Life of Pablo” didn’t actually stay exclusive to Tidal. A couple weeks after its debut, the album appeared on Apple Music,  Spotify, and then finally West’s website–and Tidal subscribers took notice.

One California man is so angry that he’s filed a class action lawsuit against both Kanye and Tidal. Justin Baker-Rhett alleges that Tidal used its one month free trial and West’s “exclusive” album to boost sales for the service the he says was “quietly teetering on the brink of collapse.”

“Kanye has the power to send one tweet out into the world and get 2 million people to act on it. This suit is about holding him accountable when he abuses that power,” said Jay Edelson, the founder and CEO of Baker-Rhett’s law firm Edelson PC, in a statement to Rolling Stone.

The lawsuit is asking that Tidal delete the “private information” of both Baker-Rhett and anyone else that joins with the class action suit, claiming that they swindled subscriber’s card information could amount to as much as $84 million for Tidal.

So far neither Tidal, nor West have released public statements addressing the lawsuit’s allegations that they tricked fans into subscribing.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Kanye West Trick Fans Into Signing Up for Tidal? appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped.

Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. However, none of that compares to the potential embarrassment Tidal may face if Jay Z’s wife and co-owner Beyoncé is forced by Sony to remove her music.

In an extensive look at Tidal’s shortcomings by Bloomberg Businessweek, writer Devin Leonard calls the service “a complete disaster,” highlighting one huge problem threatening Tidal’s future. After a PR blunder ruined financial backing talks with Sprint, Tidal was short on the cash it needed to pay hefty royalty requests from Sony and Warner.

Leonard writes,

When [Jay Z] acquired Aspiro, the change of ownership meant he had to renegotiate its streaming contracts with the three major record companies: Universal, Warner, and Sony Music Entertainment. Universal distributes the records of some of Roc Nation’s artists, so Jay Z was able to quickly reach an agreement with that company. But music industry people who are familiar with the negotiations and forbidden from discussing them publicly say that Sony and Warner are asking Tidal for large advances in return for the right to feature their artists’ catalogs.

If Jay Z can’t come up with the cash for Sony, he faces the possibility that Tidal might lose albums from some of its co-owners, most painfully Beyoncé, a Sony artist.

Not Beyoncé! Of the 15 mega stars sharing the stage during Tidal’s illuminati-worthy launch, Beyoncé and her promised Tidal-exclusive content (i.e. “Feeling Myself” music video ft. Nicki Minaj) was one of the bigger selling points for people asking themselves “why pay.”

But would Sony really pull all of Beyoncé’s music catalogue from her own company? Well it wouldn’t be a first for the music industry giant, which recently removed artists including Adele, Hozier, and Miguel from SoundCloud due to a similar licensing impasse.

Another big issue threatening the fate of Tidal is its user base. Tidal advertises having 900,000 users, but analysts who spoke with Bloomberg suspect that many of them signed up for free trials and will cancel when they have to start paying.

All in all it’s not a good look for Jay Z if he loses his wife’s music or if he loses the majority of his users after their free trials expire. Despite having shown an affinity for business in other pursuits including a highly successful clothing line and record label, Jay Z might be drowning with Tidal.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen appeared first on Law Street.

The number one post on Law Street last week was written by Alexis Evans, who provided warnings about a secret TSA checklist for spotting terrorists. Check out her article if you want to avoid behaviors that could lead to some extra security scrutiny. The number two post, also written by Alexis Evans, discussed Jay Z’s new company–Tidal. Tidal may revolutionize the music industry, or it may end up pushing users back to pirating music. Finally, the number three post was written by Anneliese Mahoney about the banning of smart watches in college classrooms. Professors are concerned that they would help students cheat, and don’t want to see them brought in on test day. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 TSA Has Secret Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Hint: Don’t Yawn at Security

This checklist is part of a controversial TSA program to identify potential terrorists based on behaviors that “indicate stress or deception.” The program is known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT. SPOT is operated by trained individuals known as ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ who observe and interact with passengers during screenings. Read the full article here.

#2 Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback?

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him. Read the full article here.

#3 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating?

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

How would you feel about a music streaming service with CD quality sound, video and editorial content, full offline capabilities, and exclusive tracks from your favorite artists? Sounds amazing, right? But is it worth ditching your free Spotify account for a $20-a-month fee? Rapper and business mogul Jay Z thinks that it is, and has enlisted a crew of Illuminati grade artists to back him.

The new music streaming website Tidal, also known as TidalHiFi, promises to revolutionize the music industry by becoming the first “artist owned” music streaming platform of its kind. That sounds like a great way to solve some of the problems artists have with the music industry, like getting next to nothing for music royalties. But it’s not solving a problem for consumers–it’s creating one. Tidal subscriptions will end up costing listeners $20 for high-definition streaming and $10 for regular quality, with no free ad-supported option.

The fact of the matter is that music listeners don’t want to pay for music, especially when they can easily get it for free. Spotify, which is the current leader in online streaming, attempted to solve that problem by starting out with a free ad tier in its service that allows listeners to enjoy their music mixed with ads first before deciding whether or not to upgrade to the premium benefits of its subscription version, which costs $10. That worked for Spotify, but with no free version to entice listeners, convincing anyone to pony up $20 for Tidal is a tough sell.

One thing Tidal does have working for it is a list of top names in the music industry invested in it, including Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Daft Punk, Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Alicia Keys, and Taylor Swift. Convincing Swift to come back to online streaming is impressive, especially after the singer famously broke up with Spotify last year over a disagreement with how artists on the site are compensated. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, she stated “valuable things should be paid for.” Tidal’s plan to offer a few exclusive tracks is nice, but still not a huge selling point. If Tidal were somehow able to make it so people could only listen to music from these artists on its site, they would really be getting somewhere.

You can watch some of the platform’s celebrity supporters below in Tidal’s press conference:

Not every artist supports the new platform. Singer Lily Allen was pretty vocal about her apprehension by voicing her first impressions of the site in a series of tweets that posed some valid concerns. Allen writes:

i LOVE Jay z so much, but TIDAL is soon expensive compared to other perfectly good streaming services, he’s taken the biggest Artists

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

made them exclusive to TIDAL (am i right in thinking this ?), people are going to swarm back to Pirate sites in droves

— lily (@lilyallen) March 30, 2015

sending traffic to torrent sites. up and coming (not yet millionaires) artists are going to suffer as a result.

— lily (@lilyallen) March 31, 2015

Making content exclusive to Tidal may in fact push people only interested in hearing these artists’ music for free back to pirating sites as an alternative, which would make all artists suffer. While Jay Z’s idea sounds cool, I’m not convinced it will somehow revolutionize the music industry. A greater quality music experience is definitely something to strive for, but it’s also important to keep in mind consumers’ desires and not just artists’ pockets.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tidal: Music Industry Revolution or Expensive Setback? appeared first on Law Street.

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there.

Spotify is a music streaming site that was launched in the United Kingdom in 2008, and has been in the United States since 2011. It is able to stream music so effectively because of deals it has worked out with various record labels. Labels and artists are compensated for Spotify’s use, although to be fair probably not as much as they would if they had actually sold the songs or albums; however, as Spotify explains it, there is tangible benefit for the artists. Spotify provides a service that’s convenient, relatively cost-effective, and easy to use. It hopes to divert those who would otherwise pirate or get songs illegally. In Spotify’s eyes, artists are better joining up with them and making a little money than not making anything because of piracy. Spotify explains its success:

Spotify has already made considerable progress towards restoring the value lost to piracy and other less well monetized forms of music consumption. As of March 2013, Spotify had over 24 million global users. 18 million of them were using our free tier, wherein listeners pay for their consumption by viewing and listening to advertisements. At that time, as well, more than 6 million users were paying a $9.99 / £9.99 / €9.99 monthly subscription to use Spotify’s Premium tier.

However, if an artist or its label does not want to have music on Spotify, they can take their music down. T-Swift is by no means the first artist to do so, and others simply never allowed their music on the site in the first place. The Black Keys, Beyonce, and Radiohead are all good examples of other popular artists whose music is not available to stream through Spotify. The argument is that services like this are predatory and take advantage of artists. Swift has long been against services like what Spotify offers. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this summer, she wrote:

Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently. Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is.

To its credit, Spotify has handled this marvelously. It’s capitalized on Swift’s retreat from the site by using it as a social media marketing opportunity. The music streaming site tweeted at the singer with a pretty creative message:

We love @taylorswift13 as much as you do. Here's a message we hope brings her back http://t.co/yRm5bfNV23 #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/1lj2JB1SMI

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

It also got some fun and creative use out of one of T-Swift’s more famous songs, again on Twitter:

We were young when we first saw you but now there’s 40MM who say stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story baby #justsayyes pic.twitter.com/n6tHkG8GCq

— Spotify (@Spotify) November 3, 2014

Spotify’s actions on Twitter really kind of sum up what this debate is all about–the Internet has changed how we do all of this. From how we listen to music, to how we respond to scandals, to how we are able to interact with the public, technology has completely radicalized all of it. T-Swift and other artists’ dedication to their art is admirable, to be sure, but is it really the smartest course of action? Spotify, and all other streaming services, are on to something here. There will always be ways to find this stuff illegally; you’re better off getting people to pay a little for it than nothing at all.

Now, T-Swift is rich enough and has good enough brand recognition that my guess is that this is more of a political statement than a financial decision. It’s a decision that she can afford to make, but I don’t know that it will create any real change in the industry. While it’s a shame that the music industry is no longer what it once was, I highly doubt that it will end up going backward and we’ll all revert to purchasing music. T-Swift may just do better shaking it all off and going back to Spotify.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together? appeared first on Law Street.