Music Labels Hoping Apple Can Force Amazon and Google Into Cloud Licensing

[Rodimus Prime]

Yeah if that's true that'd be weird if it's between users. The concept makes sense from a conservatory standpoint but unless they're the exact same file that isn't private and won't get modified, this wouldn't make any sense ...

Yeah I can see it working that way for the public folder and shared folder. For example with some of my classmates we have a shared folder between us. Files stored in there count against all of our max storage space but I can promise you Dropbox only has one copy of each of those files saved.

Great tool when working on group projects.

 

[jacollins]

Why do the labels have any say in what I do with my music?

Because their view is that it's not your music, you just have a license to it. If you have a license to it, they feel they can alter the agreement at will. Sort of like Darth Vader. But without the cool black armor.

 

[deconstruct60]

With modern de-duping software on their server farms they only store one copy of each identical file. That's with commercial software. It would be simple to extend that to hold metadata separately from the bulk of each file.

the metadata is stuffed into the file now. So I suppose the RIAA may huff and puff that the are different files because the metadata is different. However, the metadata isn't really covered by their copyright. I have a feeling that the non-techincal record folks are afraid of de-dupe somehow. Multiple copies collapsing into one copy somehow is bad and a lost revenue opportunity. The reality is that it is just another form of compression. Compression isn't about the revenue stream. ( ditto with the recoding at higher compression for streaming "automagically" .... same material covered by same copyright. )

The other issue is that you can't de-dupe into one file. if 10,000,000 folks have a copy of 'Thriller' you will want to do a reduction down to 10,000 or 1,000. You wouldn't want 10,000+ folks to all hit a single file server for their copy/playback at the same time. The file will have to be replicated so the streaming can more easily be parallelized. Again big picture this is just compression.... however, can see it being used as an excuse to pay for multiple copies (without the multiple copies won't be able to scale the service).

 

[samcraig]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

And hopefully - now and forever into the future, cloud service license agreements won't be tiered.

Meaning - pay .99 for a song and get to stream it on X # of devices or 1.99 per song for unlimited devices type of arrangement.

 

[charlituna]

umm nothing that the Music labels can do to force Google and Amazon do to anything.

Actually they can. THey can sue. Under copyright law, the labels have control over who can make copies of the materials and who can broadcast it. As they didn't give any such permission to Amazon or Google they could argue that both companies have blatantly violated copyright law by facilitating the creation of unauthorized copies (during the upload to the server) and by broadcasting said materials (via streaming). And they could end up winning and shutting down both services.

While Apple, which is insisting on having permission for their service will be fine because the labels are allowing whatever they decide to do.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Actually they can. THey can sue. Under copyright law, the labels have control over who can make copies of the materials and who can broadcast it. As they didn't give any such permission to Amazon or Google they could argue that both companies have blatantly violated copyright law by facilitating the creation of unauthorized copies (during the upload to the server) and by broadcasting said materials (via streaming). And they could end up winning and shutting down both services.

While Apple, which is insisting on having permission for their service will be fine because the labels are allowing whatever they decide to do.

they can try but I believe there is a lot of case presidencies of fair use.

Try to go after me for making multiple copies of my music between hard drives, computer and my iPod players and they can not legally do that. Amazon and Google will just say it is the same thing and they have a case. RIAA knows that if they sue end up loosing in the and just make the lawyers happy who will get all the real money.

 

[pmz]

The never ending attempts by the music industry to make more money off avenues of distribution they're not entitled to.

 

[charlituna]

they can try but I believe there is a lot of case presidencies of fair use.

It's not about what you believe, but what is actually in the case law. So find the cases and then you can claim that Fair Use applies when it is not your files on equipment under your direct control and for your exclusive use. And is, in the case of Amazon, linked to clear commercial gain and activities.

You may discover that what you believe is in fact completely not the case

 

[deconstruct60]

THey can sue. Under copyright law, the labels have control over who can make copies of the materials and who can broadcast it.

they can sue but that doesn't mean they have a case. The user is the one directing that copies be made or broadcast back to themselves. The users already have that right. Copyright law doesn't restrict where you can store the copies you are entitled to make.

The one-to-one mapping that Google and Amazon are doing is going to help make it clear to any judge if it gets that far. The "fees" being paid are for the storage and bandwidth, not the music. Buying a bigger iPod doesn't have an impact on fair use. Neither one is "selling" the music with these specific mechanisms.

 

[samcraig]

The never ending attempts by the music industry to make more money off avenues of distribution they're not entitled to.

To be fair - not that the labels have "fair" agreements with their artists to begin with - many of these contracts were negotiated before technology existed to deal with such distribution angles.

Like all creative unions in film, tv and music - the legalities are playing catch up to technology.

You can't say that they (the labels and everyone who worked to create the song) aren't entitled to it. And I am sure you'd feel differently if you were a performer that had a contract which potentially stiffed you due to it not being 100 percent futureproof.

 

[mikejd1]

they can try but I believe there is a lot of case presidencies of fair use.

Try to go after me for making multiple copies of my music between hard drives, computer and my iPod players and they can not legally do that. Amazon and Google will just say it is the same thing and they have a case. RIAA knows that if they sue end up loosing in the and just make the lawyers happy who will get all the real money.

this is true, think about things just as backup devices, time machine, etc....your music on the main drive, then on the time machine drive. What's the difference?

 

[spazzcat]

Apple shouldn't help force anyone to do what the labels want. It's not their business. Regardless, I am curious as to what these licensing terms are the labels may have given Apple. Hopefully there isn't a charge. Even then, I don't think I'd use it.

I think they are hoping that once Apple shows the world what they have to offer that Google and Amazon will come back to the table and beg to be included...

 

[theelysium]

Only Amazon or Google fanboys are going to jump on to their service right away. The rest of the logical world is waiting to see what Apple has up their sleeve.

 

[rhett7660]

I read the title of this article as, "Music Labels still struggling to remain relevant."

Isn't this the truth. Big question is, is Apple even willing or wanting to do this?

 

[Thunderhawks]

Get out of your iOS box and realize is even worse for music fans in the long run. Amazon/Google/<insert cloud service company here> should NOT have to pay licensing fees to labels to store user owned music. The music labels need to adapt and not hold on to old paradigms. Can't wait for the day when they (music labels) are completely irrelevant.

I'm interested in the deal (terms and conditions) Apple signs with the labels, however.

This all sounds very similar to the cable providers issue where they want more money just because we can watch things on an ipad instead of a TV.

So, where I store my stuff shouldn't matter (ipod, HD, Cloud etc.) One thing is for sure it doesn't mean I have to pay again!

Once I own a song and paid their fee (itunes or CD etc.) I should be able to play it on anything I want.

In the future new music bands and other stars will just go directly to Apple, Google, Amazon etc. and just skip the record labels.

Remember when Garth Brooks was in on trying to get extra money when somebody wanted to sell a used CD?
(Brooks said that because no royalties are paid on the sale of used CDs, writers, labels, publishers and artists were being cheated)

That is all if you remember Garth Brooks LOL.
.

 

[Popeye206]

This is sort of a reverse situation... normally the labels have resisted Apple.

However... it's good to see Apple plays by the rules and works with the content providers to make sure everyone is happy on the licensing side.

As much as many of the younger folks think record companies are money grubbing and evil, they do serve a purpose for many artists and everyone deserves to get paid. But, the system is changing.

 

[samcraig]

This all sounds very similar to the cable providers issue where they want more money just because we can watch things on an ipad instead of a TV.



.

Only that wasn't the cable providers. It was the networks, producers, etc.

And if you look at my post above - it explains the scenario quite well.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

umm nothing that the Music labels can do to force Google and Amazon do to anything.

Apparently you do not understand how Google makes money.

Google makes money via advertising and marketing data. Now, once you move your music onto their service it is no longer for "personal use" as you are engaging in commerce with Google.

The same thing could be said about Amazon but in the case of Amazon you are actually buying music and they are hosting it. You are using their copy not yours.

We have countless court cases and what not about movies and music already.

When you buy an MP3 is is for *personal* use not commercial use.

 

[Popeye206]

they can try but I believe there is a lot of case presidencies of fair use.

Try to go after me for making multiple copies of my music between hard drives, computer and my iPod players and they can not legally do that. Amazon and Google will just say it is the same thing and they have a case. RIAA knows that if they sue end up loosing in the and just make the lawyers happy who will get all the real money.

LOL! Sorry Radimust Prime... there is no "presidencies of fair use". The artists and the labels own the copy rights and license you the right to one or two copies... but you don't have rights to broadcast or sell for money. No one does without a license that says so. Period. Funny.

 

[Consultant]

I wonder when will the music companies drop Amazon as a music retailer?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

LOL! Sorry Radimust Prime... there is no "presidencies of fair use". The artists and the labels own the copy rights and license you the right to one or two copies... but you don't have rights to broadcast or sell for money. No one does without a license that says so. Period. Funny.

and it goes back to how is it broad casting. How it is different than me streaming music from my computer to MY cell phone. It is a private connection and no one else is listen in on it. No one has touch those companies like AudioGalaxy which sure as hell does not have some agreement with the record labels as you are streaming music from your personal computer over the internet to your personal phone (or another computer).
The argument will be made how is this any different than burning a copy of a cd or ripping the music to your computer then making copies of the MP3 for personal storage not sharing. Only difference is were the files are stored but it is still locked down to one person and personal storage and the record company know this. This is the reason we have not seen a law suit yet. Until the record company price is lower than what it cost amazon or google to store multiple copies of the same music files they will not agree to it. It is cheaper for them pay for extra storage space than it is to agree to their insane demands.

This is more or less the same time. Just the files are stored on a server.

This is not internet radio which is a different playing field.

I will say I find it sad that the Apple fanboys think this is great. Instead of seeing how the record company are not relevant in their current business model.

 

[edoates]

LOL! Sorry Radimust Prime... there is no "presidencies of fair use". The artists and the labels own the copy rights and license you the right to one or two copies... but you don't have rights to broadcast or sell for money. No one does without a license that says so. Period. Funny.

There is precedence: I can make as many copies for my own personal use of music I've purchased (ok, licensed for my personal use) as I want - iPod, backup drives, even physical CD-Rs as long as I don't sell them or give them away.

As long as the Google and Android services are under my control, and they don't take my copy, determine that it's "identical" to someone elses, then serve mine to others, it's just a backup service that happens to be located remotely.

But any re-encoding, deduping, etc. is open to question, and the lawyers will have fun driving their new Jaguars.

 

[NoNothing]

Can someone explain to me why record labels need to be involved with this? Aren't cloud services simply just a way to listen to your music from a cloud rather than a hard drive? How is it any different from DropBox? Why do the labels have any say in what I do with my music?

When you store your music on your hard drive, you don't re-encode the music to listen to it.

 

[NoNothing]

There is precedence: I can make as many copies for my own personal use of music I've purchased (ok, licensed for my personal use) as I want - iPod, backup drives, even physical CD-Rs as long as I don't sell them or give them away.

As long as the Google and Android services are under my control, and they don't take my copy, determine that it's "identical" to someone elses, then serve mine to others, it's just a backup service that happens to be located remotely.

But any re-encoding, deduping, etc. is open to question, and the lawyers will have fun driving their new Jaguars.

Google specifically states they re-encode the stream for bandwidth limits. I am wondering if this might get them into trouble?

 

[samcraig]

There is precedence: I can make as many copies for my own personal use of music I've purchased (ok, licensed for my personal use) as I want - iPod, backup drives, even physical CD-Rs as long as I don't sell them or give them away.

As long as the Google and Android services are under my control, and they don't take my copy, determine that it's "identical" to someone elses, then serve mine to others, it's just a backup service that happens to be located remotely.

But any re-encoding, deduping, etc. is open to question, and the lawyers will have fun driving their new Jaguars.

Would you fault the record companies and artists for wanting a piece of the pie if money is to be made off of their product in this fashion? Just asking.

Now the alternative solution - which would be a greater pain and cost to the labels would to be say screw you to apple, amazon, etc and provide cloud hosting themselves. But then a customer would have to sync "into" multiple clouds. Not very customer friendly.

Since that's not really an option - I can't blame the record labels for taking the stance that if Google and others are going to make money off of their product, that the LICENSING agreement be examined and possibly changed to reflect technology as it is today...