Sidebar Sidebar
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

Thunderhawks said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, but you are still logging into your account. Same can be said if you take your cd and play it in there computer. Same no? You are not giving them the music, you are not selling it, you are just listening to it.

And lets say you bring your iPod to a party and plug it in to the stereo so everyone can listen to it? Or bring the cd and put it in so everyone can listen to it?

These are going to be interesting questions and I really want to see how the record labels are going to stop this type of listening.
 
deconstruct60 said:
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. )
Click to expand...

Actually - I recycled them...
 
samcraig said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

Wrong. If you remove Flash and Adobe Air from your Windows/MacOS X computer the player will not run. The application is running on your computer. Not their servers. If it was running on their servers deleting Flash/Air would not make a different. The "controller" is the player. The servers do push bits back to your computer as the application requests them. However, that is a point to point, secured data stream that just happens to be music data. The player itself is on your computer. Where the data and/or the executable code for the player are stored are immaterial. "online" connotes where bits are stored not execution.

the only computational workload being done on Amazon/google servers is flow control ( sending enough but not too little/ too much to the app) and compression ( related to flow control but adjusting the content. ) This is just a specialized FTP service. All it is doing is transfering files in an efficient manner.

Likewise, on Andriod phones there is no Flash at all and it is an app. Again only goes to demonstrate that this is is not dependent upon a browser. Even more clear with Google's version since can play a subset of the music that is tagged in an offline mode ( a local copy is cached so can play when not connected to the internet. Again completely under user control. Normal mode no caching. )


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.
Click to expand...

Completely different situation. How delivered is immaterial. It is who it is delivered to that is the critical difference.

PR company .... broadcasting content to random people who do not have a license to the content.

Amazon/Google .... transmitting to a single user the same material that he/she uploaded into the site in the first place. It is not a copy that Amazon/Google had that is being "broadcast" to a random user.

First, it is not a "broad" cast in the normal usage mode. it is to a single user. Random joe cannot see , access, or play this file. That is completely unlike the PR website whose primary purpose is to introduce the material to folks who are not familiar with it ( it is not to show the play to folks who have seen the play 3-4 times. Quite the opposite).

The abnormal usage mode ( user gives away account info disregarding the EULA for the service) is really out of Amazon/Google's control. They are not selling or encouraging that. Quite the opposite the files are suppose to be only transmitted back to yourself. If there were "shared folders" or "guest passes" to the content maybe there would be an opening for an issue.

if the PR firm only allowed the holders of video rights to access the file that would be analogous to what is being offered here.

Second, the PR firm is acting on behalf of the holder to provide service to a third party. In contrast the amazon/google service (storage and bandwidth) is on behalf of the license holder. I can see why the RIAA wants to squeeze into the relationship because otherwise they are cut out.
Amazon's Music service is only integrated with the cloud disk service. It is not the same thing nor does it need another license.

The old LaLa service was a different story. They only matched metadata and then streamed back the copy they had. There some traction for them needed to license that copy since there is not uploading mechanism of a file to send back. It was never uploaded in the first place. Likewise that file will be replicated onto multiple servers so that the streaming can be scaled. So not just one but many duplicates. They probably should pay for that.
it is open question whether Amazon/Google are doing de-dupe. If they are not then there is one-to-one relationship between copies uploaded and those being returned. If there were 1,000,000 licensed uploads then serving up 1,000,000 files to the folks that uploaded them shouldn't require more licenses. To shut up the RIAA lawyers probably better to just pay for the extra disk space usage. For the large fees they are probably trying to ask for it is probably just cheaper to buy the extra disks and for the lawyer fees to shut them up.
 
AwakenedLands said:
Redownloading your music every time you want to listen to it sounds like regress, not progress.

Wasted bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Pandora. LOL. It is being done all the time so far. It is a side-effect of these "unlimited data plans". Folks just overeat because they can.
 
Devil went down to Georgia...

Jobs to Bezos:

"Well you're pretty good ol' son.
"But sit down in that chair, right there, and let me show you how its done."
 
Rodimus Prime said:
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.
Click to expand...

They can't go after you because they don't know what you are doing, and it isn't worth their money. The RIAA may have one a court case or two, but there is the little problem of actually collecting any fines.

But Amazon or Google, now _that_ is a target. Companies with money. And frankly, "fair use" isn't what you think it is. There is very, very little that "fair use" would allow them to do. "Fair use" allows use of excerpts, use for critique or discussion of the music, or for parody. Making a copy to just listen to the music does most definitely _not_ fall under "fair use". And court cases, well that would be mp3.com (shut down), Limewire (shut down).


mikejd1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The difference is that you don't have enough money to make it worthwhile suing you. Amazon and Google do. And backup is one thing; uploading music to some server so you can play it somewhere else is not a backup.


Consultant said:
I wonder when will the music companies drop Amazon as a music retailer?
Click to expand...

Dropping is unlikely, because it would mean quite a bit of revenue and profit lost for the record companies.
 
Last edited:
notjustjay said:
My first response was to think "Hey, record labels, I thought Apple was the enemy!?" but I'm taking a more optomistic approach here, thinking maybe the record labels are finally starting to realize how technology is changing and it's NOT necessarily the enemy, and hopefully are more willing to play ball.
Click to expand...

To record labels, everyone is the enemy. Here's a short list:
  • writers
  • singers
  • distributors
  • Walmart
  • Apple
  • Google
  • you
  • me
Then there's the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Now, they're just plain confused. Who's a friend, and which day? They must go through much Advil.
 
JAT said:
To record labels, everyone is the enemy. Here's a short list:
  • writers
  • singers
  • distributors
  • Walmart
  • Apple
  • Google
  • you
  • me
Then there's the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Now, they're just plain confused. Who's a friend, and which day? They must go through much Advil.
Click to expand...

LOL Sad but true.
 
pmz said:
The never ending attempts by the music industry to make more money off avenues of distribution they're not entitled to.
Click to expand...

Not being funny, and as much as I hate the labels for their practices, they are absolutely entitled to make money of any method of distribution of THEIR music, which THEY provide YOU and OTHERS with "specific agreements and licensing constraints" on their usage.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Tell that to Pandora. LOL. It is being done all the time so far. It is a side-effect of these "unlimited data plans". Folks just overeat because they can.
Click to expand...

But unlimited data plans have almost completely vanished, so that pretty much makes these services obsolete.
 
Mjmar said:
Glad that the music labels are finally siding with Apple. It will be better for iOS users in the long run.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Apple has shown a willingness to sell their users out to make a buck. iTunes if anything has kept their users in the RIAA's back pocket. Apple gets the deals with the record companies because they agree to their requirements.

So when two companies come along looking to fix this horrid arrangement we have people cheering on those who abuse our rights? Really? WOW.

Apple is not on our side if they side with the RIAA on this. They haven't been on our side for a long time in regards to music or movies. If anything they are doing exactly what the MPAA/RIAA want just as long as Apple makes a buck
 
Shivetya said:
Yeah, Apple has shown a willingness to sell their users out to make a buck. iTunes if anything has kept their users in the RIAA's back pocket. Apple gets the deals with the record companies because they agree to their requirements.

So when two companies come along looking to fix this horrid arrangement we have people cheering on those who abuse our rights? Really? WOW.

Apple is not on our side if they side with the RIAA on this. They haven't been on our side for a long time in regards to music or movies. If anything they are doing exactly what the MPAA/RIAA want just as long as Apple makes a buck
Click to expand...

I can't disagree...

But doesn't iTunes Plus have a DRM-free version (with a better compression rate)?

But, yeah, when companies abuse customer- or worker-rights, that's pretty low as well.
 
Apple is on Apple's (and their investors) side.

Apple is in business to make money.

Apple is constantly creating/revamping its revenue streams and figuring out way to exploit them as much as possible.

It's as simple as that.
 
I love this - that same labels that were worried Apple was becoming too dominate in the music business now want Apple to wield that dominance like a club at other competitors.

Hmmm, Apple tries to do things the right way by making downloadable music in a way the consumer wants (DRM free - took a while but we are mostly there) and at a price point consumers wants ($0.99). Yet it was just a short two years ago the labels were hinting at a lawsuit at Apple because they were so controlling and not wanting to budge at the price point which is why (I think) we now have songs at more than $0.99. Oh, and they still complain about the "destruction" of the album - please the album died a long time ago and has more to do with the labels pushing crap songs than anything.

If I were Apple, I would join Google and Amazon reach out to artists directly and completely by pass the labels. Matter of fact, I would sell every song that is licensed through a label at $1.29 and every song licensed directly by the artist(s) at $0.99. The artist(s) can then determine how the money is split between them which might seem like more work but I bet they will end up getting A LOT more $$$. Kill off the labels.
 
thermodynamic said:
I can't disagree...

But doesn't iTunes Plus have a DRM-free version (with a better compression rate)?

But, yeah, when companies abuse customer- or worker-rights, that's pretty low as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree with both of you. You have to remember years ago the labels and RIAA dictated EVERYTHING and still do pretty much today. Apple if they wanted ANY way to legally sell and download songs had to make some agreements but they really stuck with the price point and initially had decent DRM. I know you can argue you shouldn't have DRM at all but if the choice was no music or music with DRM having music with DRM that allows you to play it on 5 computers and many devices wasn't bad. Matter of fact I have never run in to a limit of DRM on machines I own. The only time DRM has limited me is when I have tried to transfer to machines I don't own which is what it is supposed to do. Do I like it - no, but given the options at the time, better than nothing.

Plus, Apple has been pushing the limits all along and now we have more DRM free options. I wish they were all DRM free, which maybe they are, not sure.

What I find crazy is why in the past 5 years where Apple has been the clear leader artists have continued to go with labels and not created their own "label" (for lack of better word) that handles the licensing of their music and deal directly with Apple. Why not cut out the middle man all together? I see no reason for the labels for existing artists. If Apple spent time creating a way for new artists to broker agreements with them directly, I think the same would be true to new artists as well.
 
macnews said:
ions. I wish they were all DRM free, which maybe they are, not sure.

What I find crazy is why in the past 5 years where Apple has been the clear leader artists have continued to go with labels and not created their own "label" (for lack of better word) that handles the licensing of their music and deal directly with Apple. Why not cut out the middle man all together? I see no reason for the labels for existing artists. If Apple spent time creating a way for new artists to broker agreements with them directly, I think the same would be true to new artists as well.
Click to expand...

Personally - I'd prefer it if Apple wasn't a media monopoly. So no thanks to your suggestion on Artists dealing with Apple direct. Because I think we all know that when/if that happens - Apple will demand exclusivity. Again - no thanks.
 
Actually, it is re-downloading.

KingCrimson said:
It's streaming, not "re-downloading". Second, it's regress to HAVe to sync your entire music collection to every device....
Click to expand...

And it really sounds like a regress to me. From substantially increased battery usage to substantially increased bandwidth. Serious regress.
 
samcraig said:
Personally - I'd prefer it if Apple wasn't a media monopoly. So no thanks to your suggestion on Artists dealing with Apple direct. Because I think we all know that when/if that happens - Apple will demand exclusivity. Again - no thanks.
Click to expand...

They'd probably only demand 30%.
 
NoNothing said:
And it really sounds like a regress to me. From substantially increased battery usage to substantially increased bandwidth. Serious regress.
Click to expand...

RIGHT! As I wrote on another thread:

I honestly don't get the big deal about the cloud. I don't want to depend on a solid internet connection when I want to listen to my music-imagine going through a tunnel on a commute, imagine going on holiday abroad you want to avoid huge data roaming charges etc. I'd rather just have more capacity on my own device.
Click to expand...

That said for work purposes for example having things like Dropbox is very useful but again that is more for when I have a wifi connection which if I'm travelling for business I'm very likely to have.
 
JAT said:
They'd probably only demand 30%.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the take from the artist.

I'm saying - if, someone like Bruno Mars had a direct deal with Apple - then it's unlikely Apple would let Amazon, etc sell Bruno's music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back