• Hold up before you rejoice over the free three-month trial that Apple Music is offering. This morning, Digital Music News revealed a leaked contract that stipulates Apple will not be dishing out any artist revenue for music that's streamed on free trials or comped accounts. And after the trial period, it appears that "Apple will be paying a sharp discount of 58% on subscription revenues earned on Apple Music, including individual ($9.99/mo) and family ($14.99/mo) accounts." When I compare this to the 70 percent that Spotify gives back, it looks like I won't be abandoning my premium membership for the Macintosh just yet. (For what it's worth, TIDAL pays 72 percent, but you have to keep in mind that with a much smaller number of subscribers—around 770,000, compared to Spotify's 15 million—that's not representative of a bigger payout.)

UNLESS.

As Consequence of Sound points out:

The leaked contract does not specify how much publisher/songwriters will receive, but taking into account what iTunes pays for digital purchases, it’s likely that number is around 12%. Meaning, Apple’s 70% payout rate would be on par with its chief rival, Spotify’s.

Keep in mind, at this point, that's just an assumption. But if it is correct, this would mean that Apple Music differentiated what will be paid to rights holders (in most cases, the label) and publishers/songwriters (potentially the artist themselves, although not always). But if you'll recall, via the leaked Sony contract, this is NOT the case with Spotify.

Do you have a vinyl collection? Might be a wise choice to focus your investments there. Look. Basically, it's all some very sketchy shit.

• So sketchy, in fact, that New York and Connecticut decided to launch investigations to ensure that Apple Music's dealings were on the up-and-up when it came to their contract discussions with the labels. According to the New York Times:

The attorneys general of New York and Connecticut were quietly investigating the Silicon Valley giant’s negotiations with music companies in search of potential antitrust violations. The attorneys general wanted to know whether Apple pressured the music labels — or whether the labels conspired with Apple and one another — to withdraw support for popular “freemium” services offered by companies like Spotify in favor of Apple’s paid music subscriptions.

Since Apple Music does not offer a free option for users, like Spotify does, there is a monetary incentive in play when it comes to signing the labels. Apparently, the European Commission is also conducting a similar investigation.

• Also, don't get the Apple Music library confused with the iTunes store. They are not one and the same. Chris Welch of the Verge noticed that while you can purchase the Beatles' albums on iTunes, they will not be a part of your Apple Music streaming experience, unless this purchase has already taken place. Welch said:

Like Google Play All Access, Apple seems to think that combining a digital music store with a streaming service is the right way to build a single, all-encompassing music product. If you've already bought The Beatles discography or anything else missing from Apple Music, those songs — your songs — will appear on your phone right alongside the same library that's open to all subscribers. And iTunes Match, the $24.99-per-year service that uploads ripped CDs to the cloud, is sticking around to preserve the other obscure sections of your music collection that even Apple doesn't have. But if you were expecting Apple Music alone (sans your past iTunes purchases) to march out and eclipse Spotify's catalog, that's a bit unrealistic.

These distinctions were not made during Monday's presentation, and more are sure to surface as time goes on. I have to admit that I bought into Iovine's hyperbole earlier this week and was genuinely curious about the prospects of Apple Music. But all this new information has certainly given me pause and put a damper on my excitement.