Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Labels Hoping Apple Can Force Amazon and Google Into Cloud Licensing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Slightly off topic but, Heh, that's how the government seems to think it works (think taxes on a used car or on that used CD. I know some states are a bit more reasonable, like GA only taxes used cars if you buy from a dealer but Washington gets its tax regardless and if you bought the car out of state (technically anything washington residents buy out of state but they only really enforce the larger things like cars) they want the difference in tax between Washington's and the other state. Washington is serious about their tax revenue).
My assumption is that the only tracks you will be able to stream without uploading them would be tracks that you purchased on iTunes, otherwise there would be no way to prove that they were legally obtained. I'm sure the labels would have insisted on that.
Do you ever not use the word "fanboys" in any of your posts on this board. Good lord. You are getting as bad as LTD......
And for the record I agree, with your post. It shouldn't matter where I store "my" music as long as I am not selling it or making money off the playing of said music.
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.
You are correct. Like it or not the music industry still makes artists extremely rich especially for a lot of the untalented garbage that is out today.
Wrong. What you are doing is leasing storage from Google. Not music, storage and nework bandwidth. This is very much the same as if you bought a computer from Apple with the finance option. You owe Apple a certain amount of money per month. There is commerce, but that is about the equipment, not the music. there is nothing in copyright law about having to outright own the equipment. If you leased your computers you can still use music off of them with fair use.
The commercial arrangement with Google is that you pay for your equipment lease by looking at ( or pretending to look at) ads. There is no charge per song or by any unit that is associated with the actual music files. So it is a huge leap to claim that are in some commerical releationship about music when there is no bill for the music.
De-dupe issues aside it is your copy. Whether Amazon downloads the copy you bought to your computer or to your cloud disk is immaterial to copyright law. In fact it just strengthens Amazon's cases that this is your file (not some pirated copy). Unless they are complete morons the RIAA's panties are in a wad over files upload from your computer that do not have an overt chain of ownership.
The cloud disk is for your single use which is explicitly covered in the EULA. Again people are trying to draw some distinction because of newer technology or that the equipment is leased and/or timeshared but those are immaterial. The point is whether the access/usage is exclusive. Neither one of those precludes the access being exclusive. I'm sure the RIAA will try to make them a distractions from the actual law but they are none-the-less a distraction. They hope is that they get some judge whose eyes glazes over when start mentioning technology and bamboozle with BS.
It is quite easy to tell what the commerce is about with the Amazon cloud disk. The payments are measured not in songs but in Gigabytes. You are buying gigabytes. That's the commerce. At the core, not different than buying an iPod.
Last edited:
Purely devil's advocate...
Storage <> means to play back.
The second Amazon or whomever offers a way to PLAY that music - they are changing the rules (so to speak) - no?
Whether it's via an app or an online player - they are going beyond just providing storage. - So perhaps it's not so "easy"
Apple will most likely have it so your bought music from itunes can be streamed from there servers since it is already there. Then all users can upload 2gigs of their music obtained else where for free and then if you want more you need to buy the space. I do wonder if they will include video too, i would use that so much more.
One day the record companies will be gone. Their stranglehold on the artists and their product will be released. We'll have a free and open system where artists can sell their wares directly to the consumers. They can make what they like, sing what they like and promote it how they like. Prices will tumble, every taste will be catered for. Yes, free and open. Just like the Android Marketplace. Or kinda like looking through the self-published authors on Amazon. Awesome.
Don't see the big deal about cloud music services.
You have to charge your ipod anyway which means plugging it in.
8gigs is the minimum storage today and that means up to 2000 songs. And that capacity only gets larger going forward. 2000 songs is enough for weeks of listening minimum.
Even if you have cloud access to your megaton-sized music library you are still only going to listen to the same songs you've always listened to.
Plus this whole thing is only going to put the drain on cellular networks. It seems like a big fat waste of energy to stream your music collection back to your iPod.
You have to charge your ipod anyway which means plugging it in.
8gigs is the minimum storage today and that means up to 2000 songs. And that capacity only gets larger going forward. 2000 songs is enough for weeks of listening minimum.
Even if you have cloud access to your megaton-sized music library you are still only going to listen to the same songs you've always listened to.
Plus this whole thing is only going to put the drain on cellular networks. It seems like a big fat waste of energy to stream your music collection back to your iPod.
the playback is done on YOUR computer/phone/tablet. All that happens here is the the file is transfers ( a storage service) and the software on the device takes that stream and runs it out your speakers. You are entitled to listen to your own music. There is no seperate storage license and listening license. At some point you can take the files and run them through a Digital-to-analog converter.
You don't pay for that player. If you had a CD and a CD player hooked to ampliier that would convert that stero track into a 5.1 music do you need a new license for the song. No. that is all the player is doing. converting a track you already own to a slightly different format. You don't need a new license for that.
It is not an "online player". The player itself is on your machine. the music is coming out of an app. Whether a Flash app in your browser or a native app either way it is an app.
If you put your music on a file server the "bits" would spend some time on a internet "wire". the copyright law has nothing to do with the specific technological implementations of how the bits get from some resting storage media to the main memory of your computer. Neither do the extra "terms"
record folks throw on back of CDs or come with your digital files. There is no "these bits can't travel over the internet" restriction. The restrictions are that it is for your personal use ( your disk to your computer for your lisening) and that you bought the music.
Last edited:
I agree. To a point. Many years ago I worked for a top 40 radio station. I have (well now had) a HUGE cd collection. Maybe not huge for some - but it was about 1000 cds. The space that took up in my apartment was considerable. As a bachelor in a rental - I didn't have much of an issue though.
I'm married now... and my wife and I bought an apartment in NYC. We have plenty of space - but we don't want walls or all our storage used for media. The solution? I ripped all my CDs onto an external and got rid of the CDs. So while I agree with you - I can understand why people would rather store music in a cloud.
That being said - there's barely any real estate needed to host it yourself on an external like I'm doing vs paying a monthly nut over to a server. At least for my use case.
some speculation there though. I understand streaming to a device. But DOES Amazon offer an online player via their website. IE - can you play the music on a browser on their site via a controller they've created and may or may not have ads on the page?
That's my point/counterpoint to the discussion here.
p.s. I know for theatrical video - how it's delivered matters because of Actors Equity. IE - a PR company can give a website video and they can run footage from a broadway production as per ALL of the union agreements in place. BUT - there are rules of usage. For example - the footage can only be used for news features/reviews - not for entertainment. Ads cannot appear on the same page as the footage. And prior to 2010, there was also a limit on amount of the footage that could be used.
Yeah, they are hoping that Apple will screw end-consumers just like it did with ebooks, forcing Amazon and the rest to go to agency model and jack up prices.
Uhhh, this sounds so much like little kids on the playground...
The artists, yes, the people who write,record and play those songs have so much fun tring to get paid for just ONE song that get's digitally stol.., I mean bought, so buying it once and then copying it over to a dozen digital devices is kind of BS, really!
So one day all you really will have is just endless repackaging of the SOS.
Nothing new.
This is the artists point of view, not a record company.
I got done in by the first or second round of thievery, thank you!
The Entertainment Industry "Wet Dream"
....is no more private ownership of any movies/music. Everytime you want to watch a movie or listen to music it will be via real-time streaming. That is where this whole thing is being steered.
They see this as the end of piracy and a way to gain back control over their content catalog.
I have mixed feelings about this. For most movies/music I would be ok with having them be "on demand" via streaming-only service provided that I can do a "one time purchase" and have access to the item...forever. I refuse to pay a "montly fee" to have "unlimited access" or other BS like that.
But I also want to own "local copies" of my favorite movies/music that I play over and over, I want to own MY OWN COPY so I don't have to be dependent on it being a "sunny day on the internet - from source to destination and all points in-between just to watch a movie or listen to a track.
....is no more private ownership of any movies/music. Everytime you want to watch a movie or listen to music it will be via real-time streaming. That is where this whole thing is being steered.
They see this as the end of piracy and a way to gain back control over their content catalog.
I have mixed feelings about this. For most movies/music I would be ok with having them be "on demand" via streaming-only service provided that I can do a "one time purchase" and have access to the item...forever. I refuse to pay a "montly fee" to have "unlimited access" or other BS like that.
But I also want to own "local copies" of my favorite movies/music that I play over and over, I want to own MY OWN COPY so I don't have to be dependent on it being a "sunny day on the internet - from source to destination and all points in-between just to watch a movie or listen to a track.
Orgy Porgy
I hope the recording artists are going to get something out of this Brave New World.
I see a few label haters here, and, indeed, I am no big fan of the music "industry" with their auto tune and the crap that passes for most of popular music today. But I do not see new artists getting a wide - profitable - fan base out of Youtube and internet buzz.
I hope the recording artists are going to get something out of this Brave New World.
I see a few label haters here, and, indeed, I am no big fan of the music "industry" with their auto tune and the crap that passes for most of popular music today. But I do not see new artists getting a wide - profitable - fan base out of Youtube and internet buzz.
Communist Music Theory
Why don't we all just prance over to nambypamby land, you Jack Wagon?
Why don't we all just prance over to nambypamby land, you Jack Wagon?
So far so good, but there are plenty of scenarios where people can side step
anything you try to regulate.
And, as we all know we can justify anything we are doing:
Examples:
My family doesn't have a lot of money, so I give them ALL access to my itunes account in the cloud. email/password
Same as letting them borrow my CD's to put into THEIR personal itunes library? Fair use?
I am at a friends house and don't have my ipod/iphone with me, but we want to listen to my music. I use HIS computer, but log into my account.
These are just a few thoughts, so where does fair use begin and end and more importantly yet: Why do the record labels want to keep getting paid every time the same licensed music gets played that somebody already paid for?
Another facet is that unless somebody is at home streaming uses a lot of data, i.e. ATT and Verizon are salivating.
Having my music on me in the form of a 64 GB (or more please) iphone seems to be the better option and is hassle free.
I can try to answer this for you. If somebody is running a service which brings in a constant flow of revenue, by doing little other that transmitting music, then the owners of the music feel that they have a right to also expect a constant flow of revenue from that service. After all, without them, the service might not exist. Examples are Spotify, FM radio stations etc.
If you've bought the music, the company has already taken their fair share, but if someone is charging you an additional monthly fee to access that music, then they want a slice, not of your money, but of the money that third party has taken from you. The same applies if the service provider is making money off ad revenue or other benefits.
Right or wrong, that's the jist. They are exploiting their property as best they can within the legal framework. It's their job after all, and their responsibility to their employees.
Last edited:
I think this will be good for iOS users in the near-term and Amazon and Google in the near future.
Apple is in a position of power with negotiating with the labels due to Amazon and Google racing to try to beat Apple. Google walked away from bargaining table unhappy with terms they were seeing. AFAIK, Amazon just bypassed negotiations completely, perhaps in a bid to beat Apple and Google. Apple would lose nothing by simply following Google and Amazon's example and providing similar services. The music labels must know provide Apple with something better, otherwise they'll walk.
After an exclusivity period, and Apple falling inevitably out of favor due to iTunes popularity (and, thus, power), the labels will likely extend a better offer to Google and Amazon to screw Apple. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels do something similar to what they did when they allowed Amazon to sell music cheaper than iTunes.
Frankly, after the boondoggle that is GoogleTV, you'd think Google would have learned that making media-related plans without first working something out with the content providers can blow up in your face.
Apple is in a position of power with negotiating with the labels due to Amazon and Google racing to try to beat Apple. Google walked away from bargaining table unhappy with terms they were seeing. AFAIK, Amazon just bypassed negotiations completely, perhaps in a bid to beat Apple and Google. Apple would lose nothing by simply following Google and Amazon's example and providing similar services. The music labels must know provide Apple with something better, otherwise they'll walk.
After an exclusivity period, and Apple falling inevitably out of favor due to iTunes popularity (and, thus, power), the labels will likely extend a better offer to Google and Amazon to screw Apple. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels do something similar to what they did when they allowed Amazon to sell music cheaper than iTunes.
Frankly, after the boondoggle that is GoogleTV, you'd think Google would have learned that making media-related plans without first working something out with the content providers can blow up in your face.
i fail to see the point of all this cloud crap. i just wanna be able to stream my music from home to my phone. and Im not gonna upload 160 gigs of music to any server. id rather host it here
Got rid as in shredded all of the CDs and disposed of them? Or got rid of as in sold off the CDs? The latter is exactly why the RIAA's panties are all in a wad. Once you sold off your license you shouldn't have access anymore. It isn't used CDs per se that are the problem. it is the "buy , rip, sell off but keep the digital copy" that is the problem. However, that is a user action. The Amazon/Google services don't rely upon that model. ( they could do more, like periodically check that you still have the CD. they aren't required to do that. )