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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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?
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".
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OOOPS! We forgot to ask them.
Google made me do it
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
Look at section 5.2 here: http://j.mp/gV25Re
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".