Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow

[donlphi]

How will Apple pay for it?

After iTunes scans your library, Apple will tag any ripped music from CDs or ripped movies from DVDs as illegal content and you will be reported to the copyright police, forced to pay a fine of $10,000 and up to 5 years of prison.

$10,000 should cover the cost for one person to use the service.

 

[toddybody]

Hmm...the mentioning of scanning drives and replacing "lower quality music" with higher quality seems to imply that it registers your music collection and allows cloud access to songs that match your library...even for music bought/ripped apart from iTunes(e.g., I own 3 songs, 2 from iTunes, 1 ripped...iCloud recognizes everything in my library, and allows me access to the songs any place I want).


This would be incredible.

 

[JPR]

cars?

Maybe ther'll bounce it off a satelite like xm/sirius?

 

[phpmaven]

I would be very surprised (pleased, but surprised) if this includes songs that are available on iTunes but that I didn't buy from iTunes.

I don't see how the music companies would allow it - you'd be "laundering" pirated tracks into legal iTunes tracks. (After all, anyone who rips a CD is a pirate, according to the music companies)

If you think about it, the labels will be getting paid for every song in your library. What do they care where you got it. They will get paid for every track you have, whether or not you bought that track from Apple. Now they will finally get some compensations for any tracks you may have purloined.

Now Apple may be the one to say, we're not going to pay a royalty for every song in your library unless you bought it from us. However, if they charge by the song as opposed to a certain amount of storage, which I would assume they will, then they may not care either, since you will be paying fot it.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

 

[unobtainium]

I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September

 

[maroontiger2k9]

Surely there will be issues with tracks that are not named exactly the same as those on Apple's servers. To simplify sorting I always put the name of a guest artist in the song title in parenthesises eg. Another Way to Die (feat. Jack White) instead of the default way of naming both artists in the artist field. If Apple scans my library to mirror its contents on the cloud, then they might not include all such tracks because they would be unrecognisable.

In any case, I fail to see why a cloud service is needed in the first place. Capacities of iPods seem to double every generation and a half so in a few years we will be storing entire libraries in iPod Nano size devices. To an extent that is already possible if the option to mirror in 128 kbs option is used in iTunes.

this will undoubtedly be the biggest challenge for me on iCloud... i am notorious from changing my ARTIST tags to one single artist and putting "(Feat. _____) in the SONG NAME... it just better that way so when you navigate an ipod, you can view the entire album from an artist, without having to go to the ALBUM view...

i think another solution to this is ALBUM ARTIST... but w/e.. i learned that too late in the game

 

[maroontiger2k9]

What do they mean "one day even cars" ? Is this talking about streaming directly to your car stereo without plugging it into your iPhone (i.e. a new car stereo) or will it be for streaming over wifi only, so you can't stream it to your car stereo via your phone? Wifi only would be practically useless.

apple will come out with iStereo... an itunes integrated stereo that will feature REMOTE app integration for use with the iphone/ipad/ipod and voice integration to play whatever you want it too /prediction

 

[TOYSTER17]

Google negotiated with the music labels for more than a year to create a cloud music service, then launched an unlicensed service similar to Amazon's when talks foundered. According to two music executives familiar with the discussions, Google was prepared to pay more than $100 million up front to the four major music labels for licenses, but talks broke down over the music industry's concern that search results in Google and YouTube often point to pirated music.

It seems as long as music labels insist Google do something about pirated music appearing in their search results, they might never reach a deal, which would be a shame.

 

[Bear]

While in theory this cloud service sounds like pit's possibly a neat idea, I for one would have to know what we're getting and how much it's going to cost.

Also, I'd like to know that the big labels aren't getting paid for music they have no rights over. I have dozens of albums that were produced and released independently. If the big labels got money for these, it would be like they were stealing from small artists.

 

[timinbovey]

Apple doesn't deal with independent artists directly, nor do they deal with very small independent labels directly. All of these people go through third party companies to get their music sold on iTunes. I'm sure that any label entity that Apple deals with directly has been negotiated with and has signed off. If it's a small label, the negotiation probably went something like "Here's the deal--take it or leave". Most would take it unquestionably, iTunes is the biggest music store in the world, they don't want to not be there.

For the others who go through third parties, they've all signed (or clicked through T&C's) that give the third party company the right to negotiate for the artists and labels they work with. They will certainly be compensated in some way if there is compensation to be had--but according to the terms laid out with that company--not with Apple directly.

As for the publishers...that's an interesting story. They are most likely dealing with the various organizations that represent publishers. There are only three in the US. Most other countries only have one. Publishers and writers agree to allow those groups to negotiate for them in these situations as well.

As for the truly obscure music that many of us (including myself) love. That won't change. There is no way to digitally recreate the sound of vinyl, or the thrill we get when we hunt down those really hard to find records. I don't see how this service impacts that in any way. The digital revolution has happened in music, and there are still some that can appreciate the analog formats. While this service doesn't cater to us in particular, it won't hurt what we like.

Exactly. My Son's music on iTunes is there through the deal with CD Baby for digital distribution. We have heard nothing from either Apple or CD Baby that rights/fees for streaming have been or are being negotiated. Considering there are hundreds of thousands of independents in on the same CD Baby deal (among others) I wonder how this will all shake down.

But it this works out the same way BMI/ASCAP does, the independents will get NOTHING. I know for a fact, that my Son's music has been played hundreds of times on radio stations across the US and around the world. I know for a fact his songs are regularly played on a nationally syndicated radio program, carried on over 100 stations. Now, I know that compared to Lady Gaga or that Beiber kid, his stuff amounts to basically nothing. However, over 9 years of plays from one CD on radio, should have garnered at least a few cents from ASCAP. But no. Because their system doesn't really count the "little guy" even if you're a member

The same thing is likely to happen here with independents. He does receive payments from iTunes for digital downloads on a regular basis. We'll see.

 

[slu]

If you think about it, the labels will be getting paid for every song in your library. What do they care where you got it. They will get paid for every track you have, whether or not you bought that track from Apple. Now they will finally get some compensations for any tracks you may have purloined.

Now Apple may be the one to say, we're not going to pay a royalty for every song in your library unless you bought it from us. However, if they charge by the song as opposed to a certain amount of storage, which I would assume they will, then they may not care either, since you will be paying fot it.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I would guess the labels get paid by stream of a song, not by what is stored.

 

[slu]

Exactly. My Son's music on iTunes is there through the deal with CD Baby for digital distribution. We have heard nothing from either Apple or CD Baby that rights/fees for streaming have been or are being negotiated. Considering there are hundreds of thousands of independents in on the same CD Baby deal (among others) I wonder how this will all shake down.

But it this works out the same way BMI/ASCAP does, the independents will get NOTHING. I know for a fact, that my Son's music has been played hundreds of times on radio stations across the US and around the world. I know for a fact his songs are regularly played on a nationally syndicated radio program, carried on over 100 stations. Now, I know that compared to Lady Gaga or that Beiber kid, his stuff amounts to basically nothing. However, over 9 years of plays from one CD on radio, should have garnered at least a few cents from ASCAP. But no. Because their system doesn't really count the "little guy" even if you're a member

The same thing is likely to happen here with independents. He does receive payments from iTunes for digital downloads on a regular basis. We'll see.

I would be shocked if you didn't get paid from CD Baby for this service. Like I said above, we got paid per stream from Lala and they did the same basic thing, with contracts with the labels. It was no money really, but we did get paid.

 

[mantan]

I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September

I'm in the same boat. I just can't figure out what the benefit is. Paying extra to access music I've already bought and have to utilize a 3G connection to get it seems pointless for the majority of users.

I guess I could see being able to share an iPod in the family without worrying about space. But most families just end up getting multiple devices.

A model like the Rhapsody system which gives you unlimited streaming to tracks/month to your device, but you lose access when you stop subscribing may work.

But like I lot of people, I realized I spent more on 4 years of Rhapsody subscription fees than I would have spent buying the tracks on iTunes and lost access to those songs the moment we let our subscription lapse.

 

[louis Fashion]

Exactly

I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September

Is Verizon going to give be all the could - music I can eat? I don't think so.

 

[jettredmont]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I must be missing something here, what is the licence from the labels for, exactly?

I buy a CD, rip it, then upload the file somewhere so I can access it remotely. Where's the need for a licence to do that?

It's a moot point for me anyway, the days of me giving the major labels money are long gone and I eagerly await their demise. I won't rehash the myriad reasons why they're scum here.

One known, one possible.

Known: a license would be required for Apple to keep a "master" copy of each song instead of requiring upload/download. So, if you buy Song X, and 5 million other people also have Song X, all Apple needs to do is note in its database that you have access to Song X, and from then on you can stream Song X from the one copy Apple keeps on its servers. This is a massive cost saver for Apple (allowing them to pass some of that savings on down), as well as a time saver for you (you don't have to wait for your new purchase to be copied over to the server before you can stream it, such as you do with Amazon's service).

Possible: It is quite possible that Amazon and Google will end up paying out to the RIAA massive fees due to lawsuits. Just because they are doing it doesn't mean it is legal. Just because you and I call it a file storage service doesn't mean that the player aspects when you store a music file don't hit upon public performance or encouraging copyright infringement.

 

[hitekalex]

I'm in the same boat. I just can't figure out what the benefit is. Paying extra to access music I've already bought and have to utilize a 3G connection to get it seems pointless for the majority of users.

+1.

This whole hype about "cloud music" just makes no sense. Local flash storage on mobile devices is abundant, reliable and cheap. 3G bandwidth is scarce, expensive and unreliable.

Do I really want to be suffering through trying to stream music on my commute to work going through tunnels, subway stops and dead spots? All the while paying extra $$$ to Apple for "cloud storage" and to AT&T for chewing up my limited 3G data plan? This is pure insanity.

I really think Apple is on the wrong track here. Instead of this "music locker" nonsense - they should beef up their iDisk service and give us something like 100GB of cloud storage for a reasonable cost.. Where I can store ANY type of content I own, and have it universally accessible on any Mac or iDevice. Apple is uniquely positioned to kill DropBox here, as only they can natively integrate cloud file system into iOS 5 and Lion.

But trying to charge us AGAIN for the content we already own to have it stream from "the cloud"? Good luck with that Apple. You won't be seeing a penny of my money spent on this.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

All these companies with clouds of this sort are just looking at better ways to market to you. They already build profiles of you based on your purchases. Now they will know all your musical tastes even it you buy your music on used cd's at the local store.

So now the sponsors will grab music from your own collection when the add pops up. Who knows, perhaps one day you will be amazed as all the store fronts you walk by on a slow day on main street or the mall, will be playing all the music you enjoy? It will be amazing. You will want to go in and shop. Of course being a slow day, your device will be noticed in the vicinity and to grab your attention your playlists accessed. You will of course give permission for this when you check some box allowing sponsors to market to you in exchange for some benefit (like reduced storage costs on the cloud). The teenagers working in the stores will catch on to the phenomenon and get a kick out of watching the music change up and down the strip to your preference. "Oh my god my parents listen to Lady Gaga too. She is so old school."

 

[bosephus61]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Businessweek provides an overview of how Apple's music service might compare to the recent services launched by Google and Amazon. Notably, Apple is taking the time and spending the money to reach agreements with the major music labels to support the service.

Amazon reportedly didn't even try prior to their cloud music launch, while Google's talks broke down after a year of negotiation. Both existing services are limited due to the lack of licenses. Label executives are said to have been negotiating "aggressively" to make sure they profit from the shift to the cloud.

Businessweek is able to describe what the service will look like based on those familiar with the negotiations:It's not clear how Apple intends to pay for and charge for the service. The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form.

According to Businessweek, many are waiting to see what Apple can accomplish as labels expect that once Apple's service launches, others will soon follow with similarly licensed services.

Article Link: Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow

So just as all the services want to move to cloud; all the ISPs (wired and wireless) want to start charging you for all bandwidth not on wifi. Seems like a major issue in the making.

 

[liquidsuns]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I have a question that's probably stupid, but I'm interested to know; if the plan is to allow you to stream non-iTunes purchased music, how would Apple actually know what the song is? When you purchase a song through iTunes, it has an ID number, but when you rip a CD or torrent a song, there is seemingly no way for iTunes to know what the song is beyond whatever name you gave it.

I guess one ID method could be length of song, but you could conceivably just record dead air, tag it with the track and artist and then.... just...what? How could iTunes know the difference?

 

[FriarNurgle]

Can I just put a mic up and record songs from the radio or online stream and then get a better quality from Apple... for free? It's perfect. The RIAA lawyers will be out on the streets in no time.

 

[QCassidy352]

licenses cost a lot... bandwidth costs a lot... and local storage is cheap. Oh, and it can be used anywhere, any time. So yeah, not seeing the point of this one.

 

[Spacejunc]

iAd supported...?

part of me thinks that Apple will wow us with an Ad(or rather iAd) supported version of the cloud music service for free. It would take the competitors by surprise.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I wonder if this library scanning will have any implications on people who download leaked albums before they're released? I do not pirate music myself but I wonder if such access to people's libraries coould be used to combat piracy (their fault if it does).

I think what I'll do is build a PC with the lowest power consumption possible, set it up as a media server, tuck it away and use Audiogalaxy or the like to access my music on my terms. Cross platform accessible and under my control.

 

[cisco1138]

I miss LaLa

 

[kingtj]

Yep... no kidding....

In the 80's, the "record clubs" were still pretty popular. I remember, like many of my friends, signing up for those "get 8 CDs for 1 penny" type of offers from Columbia House and BMG, buying a few more choice CDs when they had good deals on them, and then fighting to cancel. (That part typically involved receiving still more discs you didn't request that they kept automatically mailing out, or them screwing up and sending you things you weren't ever supposed to get. So of course, you kept those too.)

I wound up with close to 100 discs from those services.....

Then, there were a couple people I knew who were SO into music, they actually built up a literal music library; a whole room of their house full of shelves containing nothing but CDs. Easily more than many radio stations have in their collections.

Realistically, I don't think ANY of these online services would really allow streaming of ALL of that content to any one subscriber. Once you get a certain amount of music amassed in your personal collection, you have some responsibility to create you own "self service" digital version of that collection... There are plenty of good media server solutions out there to share/stream it all yourself.

I do. But I grew up in the era of vinyl records. When CDs came out, I bought as many of them as I could afford to replace my vinyl. So, I have literally thousands of CDs — all of which I've ripped and so they now collect dust in the garage!