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.
Ok, help me understand. As an example, what specific thing could Amazon do that Apple could not do?
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".
Well, funny you should talk about ownership. In the specific example of the article, what music do you own? Probably none. You licence it.
As to privacy, it's irrelevant to the article and was only brought up by some poster to start a shit storm.
She gets hit with a £150 television fee every year, even though she watches NO Tv.
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
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.
TOS: You may store this music file on an external storage device so long as the cable is blue in color and no more than 50' long. In the case of video, you may play this video on any playback device in your possession so long as the screen is at least 12" diagonally but no larger than 42".
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
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.
What do you call Apple using the name iPhone when someone else already owned it then?
Who is really aching to use a Cloud to store their media? I haven't seen anybody really wanting this. Is this another corporate attempt at an unneeded service?
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.
You are remembering incorrectly. That restriction only applies to iTunes purchased content and the restriction of "5" only applied to computers. I can copy iTunes purchased content and put it on as many iPods as I want. And my CD ripped music can be copied and played on an unlimited number of computers and unlimited number of other devices. iTunes imposes no restrictions.
So as my original post said, the use of the content should be controlled by the license that came with the content when I purchased it. iTunes doesn't impose any additional restrictions on CD music. It does place restrictions on iTunes purchased content, but not as strict as you are thinking.
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
Actually, you are perfectly entitled to own a TV and still not pay the license fee as long as you don't use it (Or any other device, such as a laptop) to watch live TV - over the air, via satellite or streaming online. So basically, don't hook it up to an aerial and you're fine.
But if a TV License Enforcer tells you they want into your house, tell them to buzz off. Despite what they may claim, they have no legal right to enter without your permission.
Who is really aching to use a Cloud to store their media? I haven't seen anybody really wanting this. Is this another corporate attempt at an unneeded service?
It's another way for me to back up my files, which is important. It allows me to listen to my music anywhere, without requiring that my home computer is on or that I remembered to bring that song with me. I have DAYS of music (I've been buying CD's since 1995) so there is no way I can carry it all with me. My phone has a rotating collection of music at any given time, but with cloud storage, I could access all of it.
I have to do more testing, but Amazon's system seems to start playing the songs almost instantly (at least over wifi) so there is no delay like you get with other services (I also use SubSonic)
And I'm not even the friend I know who is most into music, so for them cloud bases storage makes even MORE sense. And that's just music.
What about movies? Movies are going digital (Apple is banking on this since they're snubbing blu-ray) Wouldn't it be nice to have all your movies available so that you can watch them anywhere without dealing with annoying cords or huge storage drives?
Is Cloud Drive really streaming (as in adjusting the sound quality to match line conditions) or is it just progressive download (downloading and playing at the same time)? It seems arguable that the later should not require any special permissions.
Comments
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.
Ok, help me understand. As an example, what specific thing could Amazon do that Apple could not do?
Then there's this:
Look at section 5.2 here: http://j.mp/gV25Re
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".
Well, funny you should talk about ownership. In the specific example of the article, what music do you own? Probably none. You licence it.
As to privacy, it's irrelevant to the article and was only brought up by some poster to start a shit storm.
She gets hit with a £150 television fee every year, even though she watches NO Tv.
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
- 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
That list sounds a lot more like Apple with a few changes:
- featuring lacking (so they can sell you next year's model with the obvious feature added)
- requires iTunes
- has an ugly UI (probably lots of gray, gray, and gray)
- works with nothing else but their stuff.
- ties you to other services they offer
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.
TOS: You may store this music file on an external storage device so long as the cable is blue in color and no more than 50' long. In the case of video, you may play this video on any playback device in your possession so long as the screen is at least 12" diagonally but no larger than 42".
Yeah, that's reasonable.
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
Wow. A tv inspector!?
What else they inspect in your country?
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.
What do you call Apple using the name iPhone when someone else already owned it then?
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.
You are remembering incorrectly. That restriction only applies to iTunes purchased content and the restriction of "5" only applied to computers. I can copy iTunes purchased content and put it on as many iPods as I want. And my CD ripped music can be copied and played on an unlimited number of computers and unlimited number of other devices. iTunes imposes no restrictions.
So as my original post said, the use of the content should be controlled by the license that came with the content when I purchased it. iTunes doesn't impose any additional restrictions on CD music. It does place restrictions on iTunes purchased content, but not as strict as you are thinking.
If she doesnt own a TV she doesnt have to pay the fee. If there is one TV in the apartment...
They tried to collect this from me. I let the inspector in to check for TVs. He couldnt believe we didnt own one. His comment "It sure is quiet in here".
Actually, you are perfectly entitled to own a TV and still not pay the license fee as long as you don't use it (Or any other device, such as a laptop) to watch live TV - over the air, via satellite or streaming online. So basically, don't hook it up to an aerial and you're fine.
But if a TV License Enforcer tells you they want into your house, tell them to buzz off. Despite what they may claim, they have no legal right to enter without your permission.
Who is really aching to use a Cloud to store their media? I haven't seen anybody really wanting this. Is this another corporate attempt at an unneeded service?
It's another way for me to back up my files, which is important. It allows me to listen to my music anywhere, without requiring that my home computer is on or that I remembered to bring that song with me. I have DAYS of music (I've been buying CD's since 1995) so there is no way I can carry it all with me. My phone has a rotating collection of music at any given time, but with cloud storage, I could access all of it.
I have to do more testing, but Amazon's system seems to start playing the songs almost instantly (at least over wifi) so there is no delay like you get with other services (I also use SubSonic)
And I'm not even the friend I know who is most into music, so for them cloud bases storage makes even MORE sense. And that's just music.
What about movies? Movies are going digital (Apple is banking on this since they're snubbing blu-ray) Wouldn't it be nice to have all your movies available so that you can watch them anywhere without dealing with annoying cords or huge storage drives?
My home computer with 1.2TB of music is my 'cloud locker'.
Audiogalaxy. Done.
Exactly! Works flawlessly, it's free and there is no limit to how much I can store.