Amazon's Cloud Drive faces music industry backlash

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 93
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    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.
  • Reply 62 of 93
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    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?
  • Reply 63 of 93
    madivanmadivan Posts: 45member
    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.
  • Reply 64 of 93
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    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.
  • Reply 65 of 93
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    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.
  • Reply 66 of 93
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    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.
  • Reply 67 of 93
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    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.
  • Reply 68 of 93
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member
    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.
  • Reply 69 of 93
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    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.
  • Reply 70 of 93
    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.
  • Reply 71 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 72 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 73 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 74 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 75 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 76 of 93
    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.
  • Reply 77 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 78 of 93
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.
  • Reply 79 of 93
    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.
  • Reply 80 of 93
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    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.



    Nah it actually looks petty cool and ajaxy, though it might still use flash somewhere in there ( I accessed through a mac). Doubt I will use it as I am happy with dropbox, but it's good that they are offering it( ps is not for music only, you can upload just a bout anything)



    This will hopefully let apple sign some sort of agreement faster and show the music industry apple is not all bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.