Music labels expect Apple's 'iCloud' to be gold standard ahead of Google, Amazon
Though Amazon and Google beat Apple to the punch by launching their own cloud-based music streaming services, record labels are reportedly hopeful that Apple's rumored "iCloud," backed by licensing deals, will be the better product.
Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.
"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.
Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.
Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.
The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.
Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.
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.
Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.
"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.
Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.
Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.
The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.
Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.
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.
Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
Comments
... (Google) reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license. ...
They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
Am I missing something here?
Its really sad.
Google is trying to replicate Apple.
Google isn't playing by the "rules".
Apple is playing by the "rules".
For playing by the "rules", Apple get beaten to the market.
So what does Apple get for "player by the rules from the RIAA?
Nothing.
What does the RIAA get from Apple?
Trying to force licensing deals.
I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.
First the music labels try hard to work with Amazon, Zune, etc. to break Apple's stranglehold on digital music distribution & now they're "rooting" for Apple to help them into "forcing" Google & Amazon into paying licensing fees for the cloud storage services. O-kay.
Am I missing something here?
It's a love-hate relationship. They love Apple for providing them with so much revenue. But hate Apple because of the power the popularity of iTunes gives them. Golden handcuffs.
...technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
The same can be said for their advertising practices, programming language use and their TV initiative, to say the least.
Apple will surely be seen, at least by the labels, as the "Legal" alternative to Amazon's and Google's approximations of this type of service, cementing the advantages of being iTunes users.
Apple's had a history of fairness, among the corporate world and with consumers, even if that can't be said to be the case with developers, on both sides.
Trying to earn the trust of the labels and the studios hasn't been easy for any company, but Apple certainly has earned more respect than others.
First the music labels try hard to work with Amazon, Zune, etc. to break Apple's stranglehold on digital music distribution & now they're "rooting" for Apple to help them into "forcing" Google & Amazon into paying licensing fees for the cloud storage services. O-kay.
Am I missing something here?
LOL When you put it that way it?s pretty funny.That?s sooo not gonna catch on.
Apple then gets to step into that vital intersection and make gold out of the scraps of straw.
Amazon and Google have given Apple a gift by launching their services without more cooperation with the record labels.
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.
They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
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?
It's not the copy that's illegal but sharing it publicly by sticking it on a server for all to download.
Apple is getting beaten by its own game.
Its really sad.
Google is trying to replicate Apple.
Google isn't playing by the "rules".
Apple is playing by the "rules".
For playing by the "rules", Apple get beaten to the market.
So what does Apple get for "player by the rules from the RIAA?
Nothing.
What does the RIAA get from Apple?
Trying to force licensing deals.
I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.
1) When you have a dominant position there are times when it behooves you to play by the rules. I think this is the what Apple should do as the largest music store on Earth. Amazon is comparatively small and so it can get away with some things. Same goes for Google who has no music store. That said, in a dominant position there are times when it doesn?t behoove you to play by the rules. It?s no different than life.
2) I think you underestimate what Apple can bring to the table with a well planned media cloud. I don?t see Apple getting beaten at their own game. They?ve had iDisk storage and playback of media for a couple years now on iOS. It?s a nice player that works smoothly and offers scrubbing options just like in the iPod app for music you stream. It doesn?t do playlists, but it?s an old app, not Apple new service that Amazon and Google have rushed to market based on rumours. But I digress?. Apple has rarely been first to market with any product and yet they dominate the profits of all business legs. So what is getting beaten?
3) Have you read up and checked out Google and Amazon?s music services? I have tested Amazon?s and have read up on Google?s. I find nothing compelling, sophisticated or convenient about either of them.
So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.
Dude, why do you think ringtones in the past cost more than the actual song? They ACTUALLY did that!
1) When you have a dominant position there are times when it behooves you to play by the rules. I think this is the what Apple should do as the largest music store on Earth. Amazon is comparatively small and so it can get away with some things. Same goes for Google who has no music store. That said, in a dominant position there are times when it doesn?t behoove you to play by the rules. It?s no different than life.
2) I think you underestimate what Apple can bring to the table with a well planned media cloud. I don?t see Apple getting beaten at their own game. They?ve had iDisk storage and playback of media for a couple years now on iOS. It?s a nice player that works smoothly and offers scrubbing options just like in the iPod app for music you stream. It doesn?t do playlists, but it?s an old app, not Apple new service that Amazon and Google have rushed to market based on rumours. But I digress?. Apple has rarely been first to market with any product and yet they dominate the profits of all business legs. So what is getting beaten?
3) Have you read up and checked out Google and Amazon?s music services? I have tested Amazon?s and have read up on Google?s. I find nothing compelling, sophisticated or convenient about either of them.
Problem is that the music industry will whine when Apple beats Amazon and Google to a pulp and they have no control anymore.
It's not about "rules" or "being in favor". RIAA just wants more f$*(ing money.
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.
That's quite clever actually.
Free Forever
...Data Mining Forever!
They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
This is complete bollocks - the only reason Google could be on very shaky ground is because of the stupidity of the music industry and the cronies such as apple that support it in its current state.
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.
Personally I am hoping google and amazon become all powerful here and just dismiss the ridiculous music industry - they seriously hold back innovation.
Beta Forever
Free Forever
...Data Mining Forever!
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
I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.
This has virtually nothing to do with the RIAA. If copies are made, Apple needs to acquire both sync licenses from the label and probably a publishing license from the publisher of each song. The RIAA would only get involved if all the member companies wanted to sue Apple or another vendor.
The problem is that regardless of whether Apple (or any of the companies) store one copy of a song and use your playlists to trigger that copy to your device or whether it's simply a "backup" and every user uploads all of their material, the end result is the same - an end user is (usually) paying for the privilege of having all their songs accessible on any device. While this can be construed to be nothing more than a hardware backup device, if someone's making money at it, one can argue that the labels deserve a cut. On the other hand, if you think of "the cloud" as a big hard disk, maybe they don't deserve a cut.
As we all know, copyright law hasn't kept up with technology, so it's hard to say how the labels perceive this from either a legal or a business perspective. If being able to play music on any device and keep them in sync increases music sales, it's good for everybody. And even if it doesn't increase sales, as long as it has no negative impact on music sales, it doesn't hurt the labels or the artists. But the labels and their lawyers have never been logical about all this.
Personally, I don't think there's going to be quite the demand for such a service as Apple and others think there is. It's a "nice to have in a few circumstances". I don't see it as a "must have".
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.
Maybe, maybe not. One is permitted under the copyright law to make a copy for personal use. Technically, that copy is supposed to be a backup, but the courts have never punished someone who, for example, purchased a CD and copied it to another media or another CD for their own personal use.
I want Google and Microsoft out of my life completely.