Music Labels Not Yet On Board With Apple's Cloud-Based iTunes Strategy

[MacRumors]

Addressing yesterday's report of cloud-based iTunes streaming coming "soon", CNET's well-connected Greg Sandoval reports that things still may not be as far along as many observers would like, as music labels have reportedly yet to sign on to the deal.

While it's hard to say what Boy Genius' source meant by "soon" it's worth noting that Apple has yet to obtain necessary licenses from the top four recording companies, according to multiple music industry insiders. They added that Apple has indeed engaged in discussions with the music labels but the record execs haven't even seen all of the details yet.

The way some at the major labels see the situation, Apple could enable iTunes users to stream songs from a home computer to other gadgets without requiring new negotiation, but for Apple to stream music from the company's servers to computers and other gadgets, the labels would require CEO Steve Jobs to cut a new deal, the sources said.

The report notes that Apple could try to press the issue and roll out a cloud-based streaming service without negotiating new deals with the music labels, although it would likely find itself in court to address whether such usage is permitted under current licenses.

So, unless Apple is ready to go to war over this, don't expect an iTunes cloud service--at least one offering music--anytime soon. Music insiders say that while that the whole sector would welcome an iTunes cloud service, negotiating the licenses will likely take months.

The possibility of a cloud-based streaming service for iTunes has been a hot topic of conversation since Apple's acquisition of music streaming firm Lala Media late last year, as users look forward to the ability to access their music on a variety of Internet-connected devices without the need for manual syncing of content or significant local storage requirements.

Article Link: Music Labels Not Yet On Board With Apple's Cloud-Based iTunes Strategy

 

[Lord Vader]

Please make it happen.

 

[Pared]

This seems like the most common-sense reason as to why it won't happen.

 

[William Gates]

Wouldn't Lala have to had these same licenses to stream their music? Would not these licenses be acquired by Apple when they purchased Lala?

 

[uaecasher]

I hope apple won't wait for music and add cloud for other things like apps

 

[spice weasel]

If, under this rumored Apple cloud-based service, users would still only have access to their own library, I don't see why the record labels are pitching a fit. So the music is streamed off of Apple servers rather than your home computer. You still only have access to the songs in your library. All that would change is the need for users to manually sync devices. What's the big deal?

 

[iGod 2.0]

Smh

I hate the record labels.

 

[joeYYY]

If, under this rumored Apple cloud-based service, users would still only have access to their own library, I don't see why the record labels are pitching a fit. So the music is streamed off of Apple servers rather than your home computer. You still only have access to the songs in your library. All that would change is the need for users to manually sync devices. What's the big deal?

very simple, the music companies are dreaming of a world in which they would get a cut every time you play a song from your library in the cloud.

 

[ghostface147]

The labels need to tell Apple to shove it up their butt. No deals for the cloud.

 

[jwheeler]

Wouldn't Lala have to had these same licenses to stream their music? Would not these licenses be acquired by Apple when they purchased Lala?

I was thinking this

 

[arn]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Wouldn't Lala have to had these same licenses to stream their music? Would not these licenses be acquired by Apple when they purchased Lala?

I remember reading they were not transferable.

 

[saturniphone]

One thing I wonder is whether these songs that you can stream from Apple's servers would be based on a subscription service (like Rhapsody) or only for songs you already paid for (because you don't want to or can't stream from home). If the price was right and they offered subsription I would probably ditch Rhapsody. If not, this seems like an odd thing since there have been solutions to stream from home for a while now.

 

[JediZenMaster]

After what occured yesterday with BGR i don't trust anything that they publish especially now that BGR is owned by a big online media company now.

Trust but verify doesn't apply here

 

[Small White Car]

Prediction: The labels only allow this as a subscription service which Apple will finally add as another option.

The iTunes universe will continue to run as normal, just with this additional feature. Some will use it. Many won't. It will be something Steve hates and he'll make some VP announce it at the event. Eventually he'll write a letter talking about why he doesn't like it.

 

[thesmileman]

Forget Music what about video

I don't care about music. Video stored on the server is a much better idea because of the larger size. Microsoft does this with the 360. I have over 400GB of video and I only have a 20gb hard drive.

 

[spice weasel]

After what occured yesterday with BGR i don't trust anything that they publish especially now that BGR is owned by a big online media company now.

Trust but verify doesn't apply here

Very good point. But the whole fake Steve Jobs email sounded pretty ridiculous when I first read it. The recording industry doing something stupid yet again sounds like it could very easily be true. It's not like the labels have a good record (no pun intended!) on things like this.

 

[Augure]

That's why I'll never buy album from majors label anymore.

They have screwed so much.

Plus they produce and impose to us ****** music. Kill them already

 

[Macjames]

If you represent music as a human body then the record labels are disease.

 

[6daniels]

that explains why i couldn't get any album artwork

 

[smithrh]

Maybe I'm olde-fashioned, but what's the reason for wanting cloud-based music services?

For me, if I like something enough, I go get something I can keep myself.

Bottom line, I want the control. Been burned by cloud and on-line stuff too many times.

But, I'm interested in other viewpoints...

 

[JediZenMaster]

If this is true then the artists do need to get paid for their creations but it needs to be in a way where it doesn't cost consumers too much in the end.

For the first time it's great to see something that Apple is not being blamed for

Although knowing this forum someone will find a way to blame jobs for this.

 

[Data]

i would love it if i could just stream my own music in my own library from my own mac at home, over the apple servers,to any apple device i have,so you dont have to store it on the device.Just like it was with Simplify media,only better .

Putting stuff on the servers of apple is not what i want at all.

 

[knewsom]

very simple, the music companies are dreaming...

FIFY.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Maybe I'm olde-fashioned, but what's the reason for wanting cloud-based music services?

For me, if I like something enough, I go get something I can keep myself.

Bottom line, I want the control. Been burned by cloud and on-line stuff too many times.

But, I'm interested in other viewpoints...

I like to have control too but i've got close to 1 TB (Terabyte) of music right now and it would be cool to have a way to put some of this in the cloud. It's simply too much to carry around and impossible at this point. Due to the limitations of Flash memory.

Also maybe in the future they will offer cheaper versions of the iPhone with smaller storage space with a Cloud storage as a benefit. It would help the iPhone in emerging markets like india,etc.

 

[CrackedButter]

Go ahead without the major 4 labels then. There are hundreds of little ones who will do fine out of this I'm sure.