Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
2. "Streaming" access to all of your paid downloads that will actually be over-the-air syncing to all of your devices that play music, but it's not actually streaming. If you download Radiohead's "Lotus Flower" on your computer iTunes account and add it to your Current Hits playlist, your iPhone and iPad will automatically download the track OTA and add it to the Current Hits playlist on those devices. If you move a song up to Track 1 on the Current Hits playlist on your iPad, your other devices will sync accordingly. It's basically the same approach as iBooks matching up your current page number of a book you are reading on multiple devices.
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.
The Problem (at least potentially) with #2 is that record companies are stupid. Apple might be able to work out a deal where NEW music could take advantage of this, but previously purchased music (not to mention stuff ripped from CD's/bought from other stores) would be wholly locked out.
Remember when iTunes went DRM free? I had hundreds of dollars in music wrapped up in iTunes that I paid .99/song or 9.99/album for. When it went DRM free, Apple gave me the option of getting DRM free versions of those songs, but I would have to pay .30/song to do so. This was largely because Record companies saw it as "Downloading" a new copy even though I had already LEGALLY purchased the music.
I see that as the reason why Amazon/Google haven't come out with better solutions yet. It's not because they don't see a point to it (they clearly do.. Google demoed buying music in Android over a year ago) but because Record companies don't get it. They're demanding one, or more of the following.
1- Ensure that All music is legally purchased through the service. (previously/alternatively purchased content need not apply)
2-Make the service streaming only (so personal music need not apply, or you make it like dropbox)
3-Require a one time fee to transfer existing (itunes only) purchases to be streaming capable.
4-Require that customers pay a Monthly fee on TOP of the purchase fee for the ability to have their own music mesh seamlessly with the streaming model.
I don't think Google's Music program is perfect. I don't think they think that either. But it was most likely the best they could work out without perpetuating the archaic mindset that record companies operate under. I'm sure Apple will come up with a better solution since they have the marketshare to make companies listen. I'm just hoping they play some serious hardball, so we don't have another "Repurchase the music you already own" fiasco like the DRM free switch was.
Remember when iTunes went DRM free? I had hundreds of dollars in music wrapped up in iTunes that I paid .99/song or 9.99/album for. When it went DRM free, Apple gave me the option of getting DRM free versions of those songs, but I would have to pay .30/song to do so. This was largely because Record companies saw it as "Downloading" a new copy even though I had already LEGALLY purchased the music.
I agree that the labels are very poor at customer service but this wasn't even close to the worst thing that could have happen to users. You also got a 256k version of those tracks and the new price for pretty much all songs was now $1.29 so the charge of 30¢ doesn't seem to be too outrageous to me and likely the result of Apple negotiations. I doubt know that for sure but have little faith the labels would come up with that on their own over charging $1.29 for the 256k version, DRM or no DRM.
I agree that the labels are very poor at customer service but this wasn't even close to the worst thing that could have happen to users. You also got a 256k version of those tracks and the new price for pretty much all songs was now $1.29 so the charge of 30¢ doesn't seem to be too outrageous to me and likely the result of Apple negotiations. I doubt know that for sure but have little faith the labels would come up with that on their own over charging $1.29 for the 256k version, DRM or no DRM.
I understand that there was an increase in quality, and that things could be a lot worse. I'm just saying that I doubt the things holding back "Cloud Music Playback" like people dream it of being have little to do with technology (or the willingness of companies like Apple) and everything to do record companies wanting arbitrary fees, like the time cellphone companies were sued because they wanted "Performance rights" for ringtones, even though the customer already paid for the legal ringtone download. I know that Apple did work out some sort of deal with the record companies. I'm sure if it was up to them there would be NO way to get the DRM free version of previously purchased songs without repurchasing it. It still was really annoying to see the "upgrade your music to DRM FREE" ad in itunes with $100+ price tag on it.
Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.
Try a free Zune pass for 14 days, and that will tell you if you like option 1.
But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.
Making a copy isn't illegal as that would make backing up your songs on a separate hard drive in case of failure illegal. Should only one copy absolutely exist at any point in time? Do we really want to walk down that road?
Unfortunately streaming from a cloud is not the same thing as a backup. A backup is fair use. Streaming from the cloud using a copy probably is not. The reason is that the original copy still exists on your computer, which means you could be listening to it on your computer or iPod and streaming to another device using the cloud. That's double dipping and probably won't pass the fair use test. I don't really care which way this comes out, I'm just saying from a technical legal perspective Google and Amazon might have a problem unless they have a way to prevent this scenario.
Have you never thought that you are on 'very shaky ground' because everytime you copy a song to your ipod/iphone/ipad you are creating a copy.
This does raise an interesting question. You would think this would have been litigated already. Is anyone aware of case law that says copying to multiple devices for own use is a "fair use".
Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.
PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/
PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.
PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.
This does raise an interesting question. You would think this would have been litigated already. Is anyone aware of case law that says copying to multiple devices for own use is a "fair use".
Definitely not "fair use".
Terms for copying should be spelled out in the license agreement.
More like no cooperation. Which is going to bite them in the butts in the end cause Apple will have some crazy awesome feature that Amazon and Google can't replicate cause it will put them over the line on 'shaky' legal ground and the labels won't want to play since they were ignored before.
And once again folks will be saying that Apple might be late to the party but they entered with the best costume etc.
I hope so. I'm just concerned about the reliability, speed and ease of use of Apple's cloud services once this launches. This was discussed by John Siracusa in a recent edition of his and Dan Benjamin's podcast, Hypercritical. A good listen, for what it's worth.
Terms for copying should be spelled out in the license agreement.
This isn't global, but rather country-specific. Most countries specify that copying anything for your own personal use (backup, using in another device etc.) is legal by the copyright law, and as such, can't be overridden by whatever license.
And it is also just a common sense solution. RIAA is thing of the past and won't last long.
Unfortunately streaming from a cloud is not the same thing as a backup. A backup is fair use. Streaming from the cloud using a copy probably is not. The reason is that the original copy still exists on your computer, which means you could be listening to it on your computer or iPod and streaming to another device using the cloud. That's double dipping and probably won't pass the fair use test. I don't really care which way this comes out, I'm just saying from a technical legal perspective Google and Amazon might have a problem unless they have a way to prevent this scenario.
But that's no different than the current situation with the iPod or any other media player. I can put the song on the device (or multiple devices) and listen to it while someone listens to the original copy on my computer. And yet those devices haven't been sued out of existence yet.
Comments
Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
2. "Streaming" access to all of your paid downloads that will actually be over-the-air syncing to all of your devices that play music, but it's not actually streaming. If you download Radiohead's "Lotus Flower" on your computer iTunes account and add it to your Current Hits playlist, your iPhone and iPad will automatically download the track OTA and add it to the Current Hits playlist on those devices. If you move a song up to Track 1 on the Current Hits playlist on your iPad, your other devices will sync accordingly. It's basically the same approach as iBooks matching up your current page number of a book you are reading on multiple devices.
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.
The Problem (at least potentially) with #2 is that record companies are stupid. Apple might be able to work out a deal where NEW music could take advantage of this, but previously purchased music (not to mention stuff ripped from CD's/bought from other stores) would be wholly locked out.
Remember when iTunes went DRM free? I had hundreds of dollars in music wrapped up in iTunes that I paid .99/song or 9.99/album for. When it went DRM free, Apple gave me the option of getting DRM free versions of those songs, but I would have to pay .30/song to do so. This was largely because Record companies saw it as "Downloading" a new copy even though I had already LEGALLY purchased the music.
I see that as the reason why Amazon/Google haven't come out with better solutions yet. It's not because they don't see a point to it (they clearly do.. Google demoed buying music in Android over a year ago) but because Record companies don't get it. They're demanding one, or more of the following.
1- Ensure that All music is legally purchased through the service. (previously/alternatively purchased content need not apply)
2-Make the service streaming only (so personal music need not apply, or you make it like dropbox)
3-Require a one time fee to transfer existing (itunes only) purchases to be streaming capable.
4-Require that customers pay a Monthly fee on TOP of the purchase fee for the ability to have their own music mesh seamlessly with the streaming model.
I don't think Google's Music program is perfect. I don't think they think that either. But it was most likely the best they could work out without perpetuating the archaic mindset that record companies operate under. I'm sure Apple will come up with a better solution since they have the marketshare to make companies listen. I'm just hoping they play some serious hardball, so we don't have another "Repurchase the music you already own" fiasco like the DRM free switch was.
Remember when iTunes went DRM free? I had hundreds of dollars in music wrapped up in iTunes that I paid .99/song or 9.99/album for. When it went DRM free, Apple gave me the option of getting DRM free versions of those songs, but I would have to pay .30/song to do so. This was largely because Record companies saw it as "Downloading" a new copy even though I had already LEGALLY purchased the music.
I agree that the labels are very poor at customer service but this wasn't even close to the worst thing that could have happen to users. You also got a 256k version of those tracks and the new price for pretty much all songs was now $1.29 so the charge of 30¢ doesn't seem to be too outrageous to me and likely the result of Apple negotiations. I doubt know that for sure but have little faith the labels would come up with that on their own over charging $1.29 for the 256k version, DRM or no DRM.
I agree that the labels are very poor at customer service but this wasn't even close to the worst thing that could have happen to users. You also got a 256k version of those tracks and the new price for pretty much all songs was now $1.29 so the charge of 30¢ doesn't seem to be too outrageous to me and likely the result of Apple negotiations. I doubt know that for sure but have little faith the labels would come up with that on their own over charging $1.29 for the 256k version, DRM or no DRM.
I understand that there was an increase in quality, and that things could be a lot worse. I'm just saying that I doubt the things holding back "Cloud Music Playback" like people dream it of being have little to do with technology (or the willingness of companies like Apple) and everything to do record companies wanting arbitrary fees, like the time cellphone companies were sued because they wanted "Performance rights" for ringtones, even though the customer already paid for the legal ringtone download. I know that Apple did work out some sort of deal with the record companies. I'm sure if it was up to them there would be NO way to get the DRM free version of previously purchased songs without repurchasing it. It still was really annoying to see the "upgrade your music to DRM FREE" ad in itunes with $100+ price tag on it.
Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.
Try a free Zune pass for 14 days, and that will tell you if you like option 1.
But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.
Isn't this the same as torrenting (seeding)?
If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.
That is sooooo funny. You obviously have a decent understanding of copyright law.
Making a copy isn't illegal as that would make backing up your songs on a separate hard drive in case of failure illegal. Should only one copy absolutely exist at any point in time? Do we really want to walk down that road?
Unfortunately streaming from a cloud is not the same thing as a backup. A backup is fair use. Streaming from the cloud using a copy probably is not. The reason is that the original copy still exists on your computer, which means you could be listening to it on your computer or iPod and streaming to another device using the cloud. That's double dipping and probably won't pass the fair use test. I don't really care which way this comes out, I'm just saying from a technical legal perspective Google and Amazon might have a problem unless they have a way to prevent this scenario.
Have you never thought that you are on 'very shaky ground' because everytime you copy a song to your ipod/iphone/ipad you are creating a copy.
This does raise an interesting question. You would think this would have been litigated already. Is anyone aware of case law that says copying to multiple devices for own use is a "fair use".
Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.
PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/
PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.
PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.
Best
Thanks for pointing out this plugin.
This does raise an interesting question. You would think this would have been litigated already. Is anyone aware of case law that says copying to multiple devices for own use is a "fair use".
Definitely not "fair use".
Terms for copying should be spelled out in the license agreement.
More like no cooperation. Which is going to bite them in the butts in the end cause Apple will have some crazy awesome feature that Amazon and Google can't replicate cause it will put them over the line on 'shaky' legal ground and the labels won't want to play since they were ignored before.
And once again folks will be saying that Apple might be late to the party but they entered with the best costume etc.
I hope so. I'm just concerned about the reliability, speed and ease of use of Apple's cloud services once this launches. This was discussed by John Siracusa in a recent edition of his and Dan Benjamin's podcast, Hypercritical. A good listen, for what it's worth.
Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google, either.
I feel your pain tho; I'm waiting as well.
What is the iWorks beta site then ?
Definitely not "fair use".
Terms for copying should be spelled out in the license agreement.
This isn't global, but rather country-specific. Most countries specify that copying anything for your own personal use (backup, using in another device etc.) is legal by the copyright law, and as such, can't be overridden by whatever license.
And it is also just a common sense solution. RIAA is thing of the past and won't last long.
Unfortunately streaming from a cloud is not the same thing as a backup. A backup is fair use. Streaming from the cloud using a copy probably is not. The reason is that the original copy still exists on your computer, which means you could be listening to it on your computer or iPod and streaming to another device using the cloud. That's double dipping and probably won't pass the fair use test. I don't really care which way this comes out, I'm just saying from a technical legal perspective Google and Amazon might have a problem unless they have a way to prevent this scenario.
But that's no different than the current situation with the iPod or any other media player. I can put the song on the device (or multiple devices) and listen to it while someone listens to the original copy on my computer. And yet those devices haven't been sued out of existence yet.