Sure, but what it doesn't mean is that it "Removes windowing for artists", as was claimed.
One problem with this whole discussion is that we have no previous contract to compare to. It's possible these are all new conditions or it's possible these are exactly the same clauses except with the subscription service mentioned.
Edit: In fact, here's the iTunes similar clause:
> "Except for a special circumstance, such as an exclusive, limited-time, one-off promotion for particular COMPANY Content, or for a reason beyond COMPANY’s control (e.g., a third party contractual restriction), or as otherwise agreed by the Parties, COMPANY (or a third party designated by COMPANY in writing and approved by ITUNES) shall commence delivery of all existing COMPANY Content as soon as reasonably possible following the Effective Date, and prospectively during the Term, for just cleared COMPANY Content and new releases, at least in time for ITUNES to begin selling eMasters the earlier of a general release date, provided by COMPANY, or when any other distributor is permitted to begin selling, or making commercially available, COMPANY Content in any format."[1]
essentially, absent exclusive one-off promotions, all the company's music has to be provided to iTunes, and new music has to be made available on the general release date or when other distributors can start selling it, whichever is earlier.
An interpretation in Europe I read suggested that the problem comes in when an indie artist wants to hold back streaming, which provides virtually no income in comparison to MP3 and CD sales. The agreement apparently suggests that artists must release to one or more streaming services at the same time as retail services.
IANAL though, and don't even understand the contract after reading it.
It wasn't meant to be nasty but the text quoted by the person to my mind actively contradicted his point. It stated that in very limited circumstances may "something" be done and was used as evidence that "something" wasn't controlled. I added the "and think about" part of my response when I reread and realised that the restrictiveness wasn't completely explicit although it was pretty clear. I really felt that the parent hadn't properly considered the meaning of what they had quoted.
1) The time limited offer can only be with ONE single third party.
2) You must provide Google with comparable offers (when they might not be a suitable partner for comparable offers).