I don't want to grant Amazon the right to view my files for "or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law."
How do they determine what is "necessary to provide the service"?
Maybe it's just me being too suspicious ?\
Don't know. There are broadly similar terms in the mobile me TOS:
Access to Your Account and Content
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.
Why are you so mad Amazon came out with this stream service?? It's good, give it a try.
No one here is mad about this service. The article brings up legitimate issues. These issues are being discussed all over the net and everywhere else.
What Amazon is doing may be a serious violation of licensing agreements. While some don't care about that because they think they have the right to other people's IP, it is a big issue, and Amazon could get slapped down for it.
Sorry that I don't post all the time here, i didn't know that was a requirement of joining a discussion. As for the moronic URL, I will try not to shorten them in the future so that the more suspicious won't get, well, too suspicious. Here's the text of the amazon agreement that I was referring to in the post:
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.
This is a standard part of any agreement of this type.
"I've never seen a company of their size make an announcement, launch a service and simultaneously say they're trying to get licenses," the source said, who was described as a music executive requesting anonymity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
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.
You tinfoil hat may have fallen off. Better hide under your desk out of sight of the black helicopters until you can get that fixed.
No, I wouldn't say that. Most people never bother to read these agreements, and are then surprised when they find out later what they say. So if you're not familiar with them, and see that, you could be alarmed. But it's there to fulfill legal requirements.
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.
No one here is mad about this service. The article brings up legitimate issues. These issues are being discussed all over the net and everywhere else.
What Amazon is doing may be a serious violation of licensing agreements. While some don't care about that because they think they have the right to other people's IP, it is a big issue, and Amazon could get slapped down for it.
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.
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.
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.
It shouldn't, but the fact is, it does. Most of the rumors here have referenced the inability to gain these licenses as being the precise reason why Apple has been struggling to do its cloud service.
I am extremely surprised Amazon did this. Most of the music labels gave them extremely favorable terms when they started their Music store (remember, they were the only ones allowed to distribute music DRM free. Apple had to agree to variable pricing to convince labels to do that). Whether illegal or not, this certainly will risk their relationship, and might jeopardize the Amazon MP3 store in the future.
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.
they absolutely would not limit it to iTunes purchases. Anything you've imported into iTunes will be included. In his open letter against DRM, Steve Jobs pointed to the fact that the vast majority of users' Libraries is from non-DRM sources (ie, CDs or file-sharing). They wouldn't alienate customers by blocking what can be streamed.
They might have to, in order to get the labels to allow them to stream music.
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.
Comments
Relevant how?
I don't want to grant Amazon the right to view my files for "or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law."
How do they determine what is "necessary to provide the service"?
Maybe it's just me being too suspicious ?
Why are you so mad Amazon came out with this stream service?? It's good, give it a try.
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.
Then there's this:
Look at section 5.2 here: http://j.mp/gV25Re
in the agreement you click through.
It reads like a typical enduser agreement, kind of like ones from Apple.
I don't want to grant Amazon the right to view my files for "or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law."
How do they determine what is "necessary to provide the service"?
Maybe it's just me being too suspicious ?
Don't know. There are broadly similar terms in the mobile me TOS:
Access to Your Account and Content
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.
Seems almost boilerplate stuff to me.
have provided this service for years, without license agreements with music labels.
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.
No, it's ok.
Why are you so mad Amazon came out with this stream service?? It's good, give it a try.
No one here is mad about this service. The article brings up legitimate issues. These issues are being discussed all over the net and everywhere else.
What Amazon is doing may be a serious violation of licensing agreements. While some don't care about that because they think they have the right to other people's IP, it is a big issue, and Amazon could get slapped down for it.
Sorry that I don't post all the time here, i didn't know that was a requirement of joining a discussion. As for the moronic URL, I will try not to shorten them in the future so that the more suspicious won't get, well, too suspicious. Here's the text of the amazon agreement that I was referring to in the post:
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.
This is a standard part of any agreement of this type.
This is a standard part of any agreement of this type.
I guess I am too suspicious then.
"I've never seen a company of their size make an announcement, launch a service and simultaneously say they're trying to get licenses," the source said, who was described as a music executive requesting anonymity.
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.
You tinfoil hat may have fallen off. Better hide under your desk out of sight of the black helicopters until you can get that fixed.
I guess I am too suspicious then.
No, I wouldn't say that. Most people never bother to read these agreements, and are then surprised when they find out later what they say. So if you're not familiar with them, and see that, you could be alarmed. But it's there to fulfill legal requirements.
No one here is mad about this service. The article brings up legitimate issues. These issues are being discussed all over the net and everywhere else.
What Amazon is doing may be a serious violation of licensing agreements. While some don't care about that because they think they have the right to other people's IP, it is a big issue, and Amazon could get slapped down for it.
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.
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.
Ask yourself - what exactly did you 'buy'?
Then there's this:
Look at section 5.2 here: http://j.mp/gV25Re
in the agreement you click through.
Don't see the issue with that. Pretty generic, and acceptable terms, IMO.
They are asking for access to files to fix problems, and in case they are legally required to do so.
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.
It shouldn't, but the fact is, it does. Most of the rumors here have referenced the inability to gain these licenses as being the precise reason why Apple has been struggling to do its cloud service.
I am extremely surprised Amazon did this. Most of the music labels gave them extremely favorable terms when they started their Music store (remember, they were the only ones allowed to distribute music DRM free. Apple had to agree to variable pricing to convince labels to do that). Whether illegal or not, this certainly will risk their relationship, and might jeopardize the Amazon MP3 store in the future.
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.
they absolutely would not limit it to iTunes purchases. Anything you've imported into iTunes will be included. In his open letter against DRM, Steve Jobs pointed to the fact that the vast majority of users' Libraries is from non-DRM sources (ie, CDs or file-sharing). They wouldn't alienate customers by blocking what can be streamed.
They might have to, in order to get the labels to allow them to stream music.
http://www.mp3tunes.com/
have provided this service for years, without license agreements with music labels.
And there has been a lawsuit against them for years which is still ongoing. You should have mentioned that as well.
They are trying to get it dismissed. It's considered at best a 50/50 chance.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/10/11...le.and.google/
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.