or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Amazon's Cloud Drive faces music industry backlash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amazon's Cloud Drive faces music industry backlash - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbsteph View Post

Wait a minute, the music grand pubas want a special license (Read more money) for me to save my Amazon purchased music on a cloud disc and play same via an Android app or browser. Since I have already purchased the item, what gives Sony et al, the right to tell me how I save and access the item? I applaud Amazon for ignoring the music industry's desire to extract more money from me and/or decide how I may store and use such items once purchased. I hope Apple and others follow suit.

It's a complicated issue. For example, writers are saying the same thing to publishers. Each medium needs new contracts and new payments. Look at musicians, they're complaining about the same thing. This covers all artists, writers, actors, screenwriters, even producers. In fact, everyone wants to get paid whenever something moves to another medium. Basing your own music, which remember, like it or not, you don't own, but license, is considered to be another performance medium.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the argument going on for the past ten years or so. Until it's resolved, services like this will come under fire, as the licenses the services like iTunes and the Amazon Music store sign, prohibit it outright.
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

I just keep wondering how long it is going to be before Apple and Amazon and Google follow Netflix's example and start cutting out the middle men.

As soon as the artists realize that they no longer need the middle men and that they could keep more of the proceeds if they made deals directly with Apple/Amazon/Google. Think about it. What did the record companies do for them originally?

(1) "discover" them
(2) help them produce the product (i.e. albums, etc)
(3) help them market the product (advertisement, paid airtime, etc)

In this day and age, artists can produce their own material, get discovered, and market themselves quite easily if the talent is there to back it up. I'm sure there's more to it than those three things, but I also think that the writing is on the wall and it's only a matter of time.

Thompson
post #43 of 94
There is a key difference between the two clauses. In Apple's case they can only access your information if they are "legally required to .... or if in good faith belief..."

The Amazon clause is a lot more open ended.

Both are boiler plate but the Apple clause does require them to show reason before accessing your data.

Amazon
5.2 Our Right to Access Your Files. You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files: to provide you with technical support and address technical issues; to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats; or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

Apple
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

That's the problem with music licensing (and licensing in general). Not only the 'what' is defined, but the 'how' can defind so narrowly so as to make one thing lie within the agreement (such as storage on your hard disk), and another not so (like storage offsite or in the 'cloud' as you will). A license is really only a contract between parties so there's no limit to how small the record company can slice the delivery of audio to your ears.

Amazon is creating some value add here by providing a player but what if they took that capability away? Does that overcome any limitations in the license? I don't know, FWIW, I haven't read them/it.

Well, as I just said in the post before this one, Amazon, Apple and others have signed agreements with all of the content providers that allow what is being done, and doesn't allow what isn't being done yet. What Amazon is attempting to do here goes under the heading of; the licensing agreements you signed with us prohibit this explicitly. Yes, I've read much of this.

Amazon is trying to head this off at the pass by making the public their pawns, or shield. They figure if they violate their licensing agreements, and the public gets behind them strongly enough, the labels will have to fold. It's a big chance they're taking. This isn't the same thing as the RIAA suing individual PtoP violaters.
post #45 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

As soon as the artists realize that they no longer need the middle men and that they could keep more of the proceeds if they made deals directly with Apple/Amazon/Google. Think about it. What did the record companies do for them originally?

(1) "discover" them
(2) help them produce the product (i.e. albums, etc)
(3) help them market the product (advertisement, paid airtime, etc)

In this day and age, artists can produce their own material, get discovered, and market themselves quite easily if the talent is there to back it up. I'm sure there's more to it than those three things, but I also think that the writing is on the wall and it's only a matter of time.

Thompson

Exactly how has Netflix cut out the middleman? They haven't. They obtain licensing agreements the same way everyone else does.
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

There is a key difference between the two clauses. In Apple's case they can only access your information if they are "legally required to .... or if in good faith belief..."

The Amazon clause is a lot more open ended.

Both are boiler plate but the Apple clause does require them to show reason before accessing your data.

Amazon
5.2 Our Right to Access Your Files. You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files: to provide you with technical support and address technical issues; to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats; or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

Apple
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.

It's a different way of saying exactly the same thing.
post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a different way of saying exactly the same thing.

Not quite. The Apple clause restricts their access unless they are required by law or if they believe you are violating the TOS. The Amazon clause allows them to access your files to investigate compliance without any restrictions. That investigation could include random searches which I believe would not be allowed under the Apple clause.
post #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While ostensibly beating Apple and Google to market with its music locker service, Amazon's new Cloud Drive online music streaming service was launched before licenses from music owners were in place, threatening a new legal battle.

According to a report by Reuters, Sony Music spokeswoman Liz Young said her company "was upset by Amazon's decision to launch the service without new licenses for music streaming."
playback, something that has held up efforts by Apple, Google, and others to deliver legally legitimate cloud music services.

OOOPS! We forgot to ask them.
post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Not quite. The Apple clause restricts their access unless they are required by law or if they believe you are violating the TOS. The Amazon clause allows them to access your files to investigate compliance without any restrictions. That investigation could include random searches which I believe would not be allowed under the Apple clause.

From some reason, you aren't reading this properly. This is the pertinent portion you need to see:

"or if we have a good faith belief..."
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

First Google ripping off Java, and now Amazon not bothering to get license clearances, it appears Apple is driving these companies to do anything possible, whether legal or not, to compete.

No matter who does something bad, it's Apple's fault. Gotcha.
post #51 of 94
the same argument over whether a second license is needed to stream content over the web in addition to a customer's originally licensed local use is happening with cable tv right now too. in that case, Time Warner vs. their various cable channels. and also Google's big project to digitize all the world's book, which a court just stopped.

of course content owners want a piece of this new streaming action. in fairness to them, such web distribution was not envisioned and "on the table" when they negotiated their existing licensing deals. they see the middlemen distributors - Amazon and Google in particular - as taking advantage of that.

as a consumer i don't want to pay more for everywhere streaming. but i have to admit they have an honest point. if content is not paid for adequately somehow, ultimately the content creators die, including the good stuff along with all the junk. look at the newspaper industry ...

so from my point of view, Google is a huge parasite. and now Amazon has joined them. Jon Bon Giovi got it really wrong. Apple is getting him paid, the others are trying to screw him. of course, his albums are junk too, but that's his problem.
post #52 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgb113 View Post

They clearly wanted to beat Apple to the punch but it may well backfire on them if enough people at the labels are pissed.

I hope Apple takes the approach of the cloud locker being unlimited by file type. To limit it to music would suck and to limit it to iTunes purchases would suck even more as I still buy 100% of my music on CD.

Bill

People at labels? Amazon just ripped off every indie musician on their service, who stand to lose a lot more. Very sloppy on Amazon's part, going to be an artist's field day in court. And when they subpeona the records, finding that a good percentage of users are storing stolen MP3s, nice double whammy to go after both the company and users.

Apple would be very wise to limit any future cloud services to only music purchased from iTunes, to avoid any of the same. Unfortunately it's difficult to identify legit users thanks to all the illegitimate greedy little twerps.
post #53 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Not quite. The Apple clause restricts their access unless they are required by law or if they believe you are violating the TOS. The Amazon clause allows them to access your files to investigate compliance without any restrictions. That investigation could include random searches which I believe would not be allowed under the Apple clause.

Read both again.
post #54 of 94
This is why we haven't seen a cloud service from apple. Amazon went ahead without the licences because they don't have much to lose. They only sell a couple of songs a year so if the music industry cuts them off, they can still sell books.

If google had their way they would give songs away, hoping people would click on their ads. If amazon had their way they would sell songs and hope people clicked on their ads. If apple had their way people would come and buy more songs which they would play on their apple products which they bought.
post #55 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

There is a key difference between the two clauses. In Apple's case they can only access your information if they are "legally required to .... or if in good faith belief..."

The Amazon clause is a lot more open ended.

Both are boiler plate but the Apple clause does require them to show reason before accessing your data.

Amazon
5.2 Our Right to Access Your Files. You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files: to provide you with technical support and address technical issues; to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats; or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

Apple
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.

They say exactly the same thing:

Amazon:
to provide you with technical support and address technical issues;

Apple:
(c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues;

Amazon:
to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats;

Apple:
b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof;
(c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues;

Amazon:
or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

Apple:
(a) comply with legal process or request;
d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.

They're both open-ended and neither one needs to show cause to access your data. Both services just need to believe/feel that accessing your data benefits one of the stated purposes.
post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

OOOPS! We forgot to ask them.

Google made me do it
post #57 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

My home computer with 1.2TB of music is my 'cloud locker'. Audiogalaxy. Done.

Thanks! I imagine Apple didn't build this functionality into iTunes and the mobile iPod app as part of Home Sharing so they could push people toward their MobileMe cloud service, whenever it launches. With nearly 300GB of media files, I don't think I'll be uploading, especially not if Amazon's pricing is any indicator of what Apple may charge for storage.

P.S. 1.2TB of music?! Good Gods! I thought I had a lot!

"Be aware of wonder." ~ Robert Fulghum

Reply

"Be aware of wonder." ~ Robert Fulghum

Reply
post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

There will probably be backlash but there shouldn't be, because, quite frankly, this kind of service shouldn't need a license. The users own the music they're uploading, why the heck should the users pay again? If the users don't have to pay, Amazon shouldn't have to pay either, they're just providing a tool to play users' own music.

I can't believe it took until the 19th post before someone brought up this point. People here are so Apple-obessed that they are complaining about Amazon beating Apple to the punch, but for some reason seem to not be concerned at all that the music labels want licensing fees so you can listen to the music you've already licensed from them to listen to!

I've already purchased the music for my personal use. Amazon is letting me store my music on their servers, but it's still limited to my personal use. It's not a music sharing service. What's next, music labels make another attempt to collect a fee for every hard drive sold because it might hold music? Maybe there will be an NAS tax because you might load your music on one so you can access it from any device you own.

What if the music I put in Amazon's locker is music from my own CDs? How is that any different than ripping my CDs in iTunes, sharing it across my network, or loading it on every portable device I own.

This is all "fair use." What additional licensing is needed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This is reminiscent of the launch of GoogleTV, with the hardware/service running ahead of actually securing the rights to content.

Totally different. Google TV was grabbing content from content owners web sites. They weren't showing you the content you already owned.
post #59 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


What if the music I put in Amazon's locker is music from my own CDs? How is that any different than ripping my CDs in iTunes, sharing it across my network, or loading it on every portable device I own.

Apple had worked out agreements with the labels. Amazon apparently has not.
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a complicated issue. For example, writers are saying the same thing to publishers. Each medium needs new contracts and new payments. Look at musicians, they're complaining about the same thing. This covers all artists, writers, actors, screenwriters, even producers. In fact, everyone wants to get paid whenever something moves to another medium. Basing your own music, which remember, like it or not, you don't own, but license, is considered to be another performance medium.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the argument going on for the past ten years or so. Until it's resolved, services like this will come under fire, as the licenses the services like iTunes and the Amazon Music store sign, prohibit it outright.

I would agree with that except most (all?) of your examples are talking about how the middleman/publisher delivers the content to end users. In the example of streaming, one debate is if that is a "performance" or a "retail sale" because different licensing and different payment rates apply. But this is not Amazon delivering content to a purchaser (licensee). It's Amazon allowing me access to music somebody else already licensed to me. That license, between me and the person who licensed the content to me, should be the governing contract.

Sure, everyone "wants to get paid whenever something moves to another medium", but wants vs entitled is very different. If I rip a CD to iTunes and the load it to my iPod, the content is moving to a different medium. But that's been fairly well accepted as fair use. If I need another license to listen to music I've already licensed, what's next? Another attempt by the music industry to collect a "tax" on every hard drive, iPod, iPhone, etc sold?
post #61 of 94
Then there's this:

Look at section 5.2 here: http://j.mp/gV25Re

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Relevant how?

Duh! What don't you get - they reserve the right to access AND USE any files you upload. I guess you also don't understand the meaning of "privacy", or "ownership".
post #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's a different way of saying exactly the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

Not quite. The Apple clause restricts their access unless they are required by law or if they believe you are violating the TOS. The Amazon clause allows them to access your files to investigate compliance without any restrictions. That investigation could include random searches which I believe would not be allowed under the Apple clause.

I've got to side with melgross on this one. Both clauses mean the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Apple had worked out agreements with the labels. Amazon apparently has not.

Agreements pertaining to the music I purchase from Apple sure, but what about the music on CDs? There are many ways to get music on portable players as well as network players, NAS devices, set top boxes, etc. The use of the music should be governed by the license that came with the CD (which may or may not have such restrictions) when I purchase the music and not the device the music is being played on. How would such a device know the difference between content from a music studio vs a self-created Garage Band composition? It's just an audio file to the player.

For example, a CD player has to license the CD technology patents to play back a CD, but it doesn't require a license from music publishers to play back the audio files on the CD. That is governed by the license I agreed to when I purchased the CD.
post #63 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I saw this coming. Considering the hassle Apple had just to get permission to increase the preview-length of music samples, I was wondering how Amazon was able to pull-off cloud-based music streaming before Apple.

Just reaffirms my belief that Apple has its ducks in a row (usually) when coming out with a new service that involves the music industry.

I'm really interested to see how Amazon is going to get this one ironed out.

Right, and as I said before, Apple might start looking like the better partner, now that Google and Amazon both have apparently jumped the gun with their media services.

Consider that Apple is in all likelihood putting together some kind of cloud back-up/streaming service as we speak. Figure that they're not going to pull the trigger until they have the rights lined up, even if that means going to market without some content.

You figure the negotiations are typically tough. But now here's Amazon just sort of lunging ahead, while Apple is still at the table. Who would you want to do business with, then?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #64 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This is a standard part of any agreement of this type.

Which does't make it OK. If someone wants to access a private citizen's private data they can full well get a court order. If a storage provider thinks they have a right to your data, well, I wouldn't contract with that provider. Others may choose differently. It's not that I have anything to hide, but what's mine is mine. What really bothers me about the TOS is that they offer no SLA guarantees of any kind, for a service that can cost as much as $1,000.00 per year. If I'm paying that much, you better believe I am asking for SLAs, with a financial penalty if they are not met.
post #65 of 94
Looks like Amazon pulled a Google... When you're big enough in the tech world, why bother with legitimacy? Just do WTF you want and then tie up everything in litigation for years, then by the time you settle you've achieved your goals, in the name of rights, freedom, openness, user benefits, etc. Intel got away easy with their BundleGate of garbage GPUs, Google is trying to get away from the Oracle mess by spreading the liability to handset makers, now Amazon... As much as the record companies are scumbags anyways this Amazon stuff is a little concerning.

Looks like it's all coming down to the lesser of all evils when choosing tech... and our options are running thin.
post #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Let's see, generic name and a number, 3 posts made, some generic wording that COULD be related to the discussion, and a moronic looking url.

Undoubtedly this link leads to a virus. Don't click on it.

Since when does clicking a link on a Mac or iPad lead to a virus? What are we, Windows users? Yeah, yeah I know some of us access AppleInsider on a PC for various reasons. I understand your concern, though it might be a little overblown.
post #67 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Agreements pertaining to the music I purchase from Apple sure, but what about the music on CDs?

What about it? If I am remembering correctly, iTunes had the ability to rip/catalog/share on 5 authorized devices right from the beginning. Are you saying that Apple developed their software that way without having agreements with the labels in place? In light of the speed with which Sony objected to Amazon's actions, it seems unlikely that they would not have raised more of a stink about iTunes if they disagreed with the CD ripping/sharing functionality of iTunes, present for years.
post #68 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Amazon hasn't had anything "good" for years, I highly doubt they will start now.

If it's like their other stuff, it's:

- confusing
- full of ads
- requires Adobe something or other
- has an ugly UI (probably using a lot of brown, orange, and cobalt)
- works with nothing else but their stuff.
- ties you to other services they offer

I would bet money on all of the above being true without knowing anything about Cloud Music or even trying it.

Amazon is the last place I would go to even look for a book, let alone any of their extended products.

-The app is about as easy as you can make one.
-No ads in it
-it requires Adobe to upload data from your computer, but does not require it to play music already on the system.
-The app is mainly white with Green accents. Simple UI, but not ugly
-Works with any MP3 or AAC file, no matter where you get it. Works on any computer, and on Android.
-You get 5gigs free, and don't have to purchase a single song to use it.

You can send your money to my paypal account.
post #69 of 94
The benchmark fine for willful song sharing is $150,000 per occurrence. Sony and that lot basically have to sue Amazon. There is simply too much money on the table from Amazon rolling out Cloud Drive and Cloud Player to not try to extract a huge settlement from Jeff Bezos and Amazon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadIvan View Post

Which does't make it OK. If someone wants to access a private citizen's private data they can full well get a court order.

Why would they go to all that trouble when their ToS already gives them all the permission they would ever need? You already agreed to their terms when you signed up.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #70 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

The benchmark fine for willful song sharing is $150,000 per occurrence. Sony and that lot basically have to sue Amazon. There is simply too much money on the table from Amazon rolling out Cloud Drive and Cloud Player to not try to extract a huge settlement from Jeff Bezos and Amazon.


Why would they go to all that trouble when their ToS already gives them all the permission they would ever need? You already agreed to their terms when you signed up.

just like you did if you use idisk with apple. (or any cloud storage offer)

And there is no money on the table here. I'm LEGALLY buying songs from amazon. The fact that sony and others want MORE money because Amazon's making it easier for me to get my music wherever I want is STUPID.
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

Don't give 2 cents what the music industry thinks. They can rot. In this case, goooo Amazon.

Same c_____ who did a DOS attack on Wlki Leaks, xxxxxxxx
By the way I'm in the music industry and didn't particularly like your comment, don't complain about mine.

Edit: personal attack.

I've warned about this.
post #72 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I can't believe it took until the 19th post before someone brought up this point. People here are so Apple-obessed that they are complaining about Amazon beating Apple to the punch, but for some reason seem to not be concerned at all that the music labels want licensing fees so you can listen to the music you've already licensed from them to listen to!

I've already purchased the music for my personal use. Amazon is letting me store my music on their servers, but it's still limited to my personal use. It's not a music sharing service. What's next, music labels make another attempt to collect a fee for every hard drive sold because it might hold music? Maybe there will be an NAS tax because you might load your music on one so you can access it from any device you own.

What if the music I put in Amazon's locker is music from my own CDs? How is that any different than ripping my CDs in iTunes, sharing it across my network, or loading it on every portable device I own.

This is all "fair use." What additional licensing is needed?



Totally different. Google TV was grabbing content from content owners web sites. They weren't showing you the content you already owned.

All of this is going to have to wind its way through the courts. Until then, we're going to see arguments concerning what a license gives the rights to. Generally, it's been considered to be from the medium it's been licensed on, unless other specific rights have been given, such as Apple's working out rights to listen from five computers, and an unlimited number of iPhones, Touches, etc. And now of course, the elimination of DRM.

But does this include streaming? The content companies say no. They say that that must be negotiated as well. Maybe, maybe not, but it hasn't been decided in the courts. Then the artists who want to get paid for this must be told no as well.
post #73 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I would agree with that except most (all?) of your examples are talking about how the middleman/publisher delivers the content to end users. In the example of streaming, one debate is if that is a "performance" or a "retail sale" because different licensing and different payment rates apply. But this is not Amazon delivering content to a purchaser (licensee). It's Amazon allowing me access to music somebody else already licensed to me. That license, between me and the person who licensed the content to me, should be the governing contract.

Sure, everyone "wants to get paid whenever something moves to another medium", but wants vs entitled is very different. If I rip a CD to iTunes and the load it to my iPod, the content is moving to a different medium. But that's been fairly well accepted as fair use. If I need another license to listen to music I've already licensed, what's next? Another attempt by the music industry to collect a "tax" on every hard drive, iPod, iPhone, etc sold?

I'm not saying it's right. I made that clear before. I'm just laying out the issues. I just posted more detail on that. One factor I also mentioned is that artists also want to get paid from this. If they end up getting paid, then the publishers would also have to get paid. That would only be fair, as what they pay the artists is already negotiated between them. So the content companies would be getting less.

Somewhere, everyone wants to get paid.

As far as fees go, my daughter goes to college in London. She gets hit with a £150 television fee every year, even though she watches NO Tv. It's just in case she does. How do you like that? We have it pretty good here.
post #74 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I've got to side with melgross on this one. Both clauses mean the same thing.



Agreements pertaining to the music I purchase from Apple sure, but what about the music on CDs? There are many ways to get music on portable players as well as network players, NAS devices, set top boxes, etc. The use of the music should be governed by the license that came with the CD (which may or may not have such restrictions) when I purchase the music and not the device the music is being played on. How would such a device know the difference between content from a music studio vs a self-created Garage Band composition? It's just an audio file to the player.

For example, a CD player has to license the CD technology patents to play back a CD, but it doesn't require a license from music publishers to play back the audio files on the CD. That is governed by the license I agreed to when I purchased the CD.

One of the problems is the duplication of the files. If you read the license on the disk, you'll see that it forbids duplication of the disk without express permission of the publisher. By putting the files in the "cloud" you are duplicating the information on the disk, which of course, is what they meant.

That would be a violation of the license.

Again, is that proper and fair? That's a different question.
post #75 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadIvan View Post

Which does't make it OK. If someone wants to access a private citizen's private data they can full well get a court order. If a storage provider thinks they have a right to your data, well, I wouldn't contract with that provider. Others may choose differently. It's not that I have anything to hide, but what's mine is mine. What really bothers me about the TOS is that they offer no SLA guarantees of any kind, for a service that can cost as much as $1,000.00 per year. If I'm paying that much, you better believe I am asking for SLAs, with a financial penalty if they are not met.

You see, that's why you're supposed to READ licensing agreements before agreeing to them. If you aren't happy about this, then don't agree to it, and so don't use the service. Pretty simple. As long as they inform you of this first, and you agree to it, it's perfectly fine.
post #76 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Since when does clicking a link on a Mac or iPad lead to a virus? What are we, Windows users? Yeah, yeah I know some of us access AppleInsider on a PC for various reasons. I understand your concern, though it might be a little overblown.

A virus, no. But it could be malware that would be downloaded, as rare as that is.

Ah, but going there from an iPad eliminates all of the worry.
post #77 of 94
Quote:
Amazon:
or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

Apple:
(a) comply with legal process or request;
d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.

They're both open-ended and neither one needs to show cause to access your data. Both services just need to believe/feel that accessing your data benefits one of the stated purposes.

These two clauses are not equivalent. Amazon reserves the right to examine and use your files "as we determine is necessary to provide the Service". Apple's reserves the right to look at your stuff only for more specific purposes: protecting rights, complying with legal requests, technical servicing, and a few other specific things. These two assertions may look similar, but they aren't: Amazon has a blanket clause that essentially says they can look at your stuff for whatever reason they want, and Apple has no such clause. Those are very much not the same thing, and the legal protections they afford you are quite different.
post #78 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

just like you did if you use idisk with apple. (or any cloud storage offer)

And there is no money on the table here. I'm LEGALLY buying songs from amazon. The fact that sony and others want MORE money because Amazon's making it easier for me to get my music wherever I want is STUPID.

Well no, you're not buying music, you're paying for the right to license the music under the terms the publisher gave you at the time of the purchase of the MEDIA, case, and paper the liner notes were printed on. If you got it from iTunes or another music service, you didn't buy anything at all, you simply licensed the music, which is subject to the license agreement you agreed to when you paid for it. You did, of course, completely READ that license agreement you agreed to, so you know that.

You see, the thing about license agreements is that you don't actually have to agree with them. You just have to check the box online. And as for a physical product, the fact that it's printed on it is enough.
post #79 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milford View Post

These two clauses are not equivalent. Amazon reserves the right to examine and use your files "as we determine is necessary to provide the Service". Apple's reserves the right to look at your stuff only for more specific purposes: protecting rights, complying with legal requests, technical servicing, and a few other specific things. These two assertions may look similar, but they aren't: Amazon has a blanket clause that essentially says they can look at your stuff for whatever reason they want, and Apple has no such clause. Those are very much not the same thing, and the legal protections they afford you are quite different.

No, it's the same thing.
post #80 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, it's the same thing.

Apple version: we reserve the right to view your files for these eight reasons.

Amazon version: we reserve the right to view your files for these eight reasons, or if we want to for any other reason that we could construe as "necessary to provide the Service".

That last clause is much more lax than anything in Apple's version. Go ahead and ask a lawyer if you like.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Amazon's Cloud Drive faces music industry backlash