Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism 
I dont think they are trying to prevent you from backing up your content, but are trying to get these big companies to license their access if they are going to add server-based jukebox features. I dont think that is unreasonable.
I also dont think Apples service will be like Amazon or Googles service which is pretty much basic server backups with a playlist option for your music. You cant get anymore low rent than that and call it a music service.

I dont think they are trying to prevent you from backing up your content, but are trying to get these big companies to license their access if they are going to add server-based jukebox features. I dont think that is unreasonable.
I also dont think Apples service will be like Amazon or Googles service which is pretty much basic server backups with a playlist option for your music. You cant get anymore low rent than that and call it a music service.
I don't think that's reasonable at all. Why would the service provider needs to pay for a license to provide a useful way for users to access music placed there by the users? If you forget the location of the storage for a second, the music lable's argument would be equivalent to asking all the music player software makers to pay for a license to allow users to use their software. Simply ridiculous.




