What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...
Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).
How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?
... We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.
FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.
I understand that, but Amazon is not integrated within Android. And since Google is not planning on buying Amazon, why not create your own and have it integrated into the phone. Just like Siri was not integrated until iphone 4s. I think we all agree that siri is better not that it is intergrated within the phone. And that answers the question of who would start using it if they have amazon as well. Integration my friend! Oh, and if it was mapquest, then Apple is copying MapQuest. What's the difference, copying is copying.
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.
The problem is that the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers did not have the right to reach that agreement. The agreement that Google insisted upon was that they could copy ANY work, copyrighted or non-copyrighted, for a fixed payment to the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers - whether the authors agreed or not. Basically, even if you weren't a member of either group, Google would take your work and distribute it without you receiving a cent.
That's theft.
MIT, Harvard, et al are free to reach any agreement they want with Google. If they want to license their copyrighted works to Google, they have the right to do so - and I'd never object. They do NOT, however, have the right to license work that doesn't belong to them - which is what Google was trying to do.
It still amazes me that Google doesn't get it. Apple has been succesful because it was able to create a connection with the consumer. It did this through great products and great marketing AND a CEO that cared about the quality of what he made. Amazon comes closest to matching these criteria while Google fails at all three: mediocre product, silly marketing and...well, who is their CEO these days? 95% of people couldn't tell you.
Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"
I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,
I believe it was a Picasso quote. But here's the thing, Apple improves upon current technology and makes it their own while other people build /make "me too" products and not really provide anything new. 3D isn't desirable on a phone.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
Android is based in Java for the purpose of being hardware agnostic. Hence the Dalvik Virtual Machine. The BB hardware seen before was a software configuration around the hardware, not the only configuration.
Yes Android (and pretty much the entire smartphone market) shifted focus after the launch of the iPhone...that just makes sense. Look what happened to those who refused to advance fast enough in the new market Apple reshaped (RIM, Nokia, Windows Mobile)
And Android 3.0 can hardly ever be called an iOS clone...
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
With executives from EMI, Universal and Sony appearing alongside Google reps for the Google Music announcement now underway, I think that pretty well confirms that Google has licenses in place. Top that off with the Universal exec (Rob Wells, president of Universal Music's Global Digital Business department) excited about the "upcoming global rollout".
Rather than "just another music service" Google's put their own twist on several features. The ones that stood out to me included:
Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .
Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.
Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!
Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.
Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.
Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.
Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.
Rather than "just another music service" Google's put their own twist on several features. The ones that stood out to me included:
Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .
Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.
Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!
Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.
Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.
Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.
Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.
and it's not a Beta!!
I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?
I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?
Good question. But I think having music available in a form such as this will reduce piracy in general.
Comments
What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...
Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).
How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?
... We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/
It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.
FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.
FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.
I understand that, but Amazon is not integrated within Android. And since Google is not planning on buying Amazon, why not create your own and have it integrated into the phone. Just like Siri was not integrated until iphone 4s. I think we all agree that siri is better not that it is intergrated within the phone. And that answers the question of who would start using it if they have amazon as well. Integration my friend! Oh, and if it was mapquest, then Apple is copying MapQuest. What's the difference, copying is copying.
I am so tired of Google.
Please Apple:
1) Build the best search engine in the world.
2) License out iOS for free. People are intelligent enough to understand that if you want the full Apple experience they will buy Apple iOS devices.
Have Google done one single thing on their own?
Every single service they provide existed before Google started with them.
1) no, just use Google's (or MS's, etc) and bypass their ads
2) No, people are not intelligent enough. They'll buy cheap crap and blame Apple.
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/
It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.
"Agreement"
Paging Herman Cain....
That "agreement" was to settle a class action lawsuit. Publishers and authors felt it was stealing and sued google.
...
2) No, people are not intelligent enough. They'll buy cheap crap and blame Apple.
Exactly. Just like they do with Windows and Android.
calgary kitchen cabinets
kitchen remodeling ideas
Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html
Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/
It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.
The problem is that the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers did not have the right to reach that agreement. The agreement that Google insisted upon was that they could copy ANY work, copyrighted or non-copyrighted, for a fixed payment to the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers - whether the authors agreed or not. Basically, even if you weren't a member of either group, Google would take your work and distribute it without you receiving a cent.
That's theft.
MIT, Harvard, et al are free to reach any agreement they want with Google. If they want to license their copyrighted works to Google, they have the right to do so - and I'd never object. They do NOT, however, have the right to license work that doesn't belong to them - which is what Google was trying to do.
Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"
I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,
I believe it was a Picasso quote. But here's the thing, Apple improves upon current technology and makes it their own while other people build /make "me too" products and not really provide anything new. 3D isn't desirable on a phone.
Thx, Conrad...for responding for me.
he was mocking you.
No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).
Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.
Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
Android is based in Java for the purpose of being hardware agnostic. Hence the Dalvik Virtual Machine. The BB hardware seen before was a software configuration around the hardware, not the only configuration.
Yes Android (and pretty much the entire smartphone market) shifted focus after the launch of the iPhone...that just makes sense. Look what happened to those who refused to advance fast enough in the new market Apple reshaped (RIM, Nokia, Windows Mobile)
And Android 3.0 can hardly ever be called an iOS clone...
Does Larry Page have ADD?
I really don't get what direction that company is going.
Outward.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/g...les/#continued
Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.
After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
With executives from EMI, Universal and Sony appearing alongside Google reps for the Google Music announcement now underway, I think that pretty well confirms that Google has licenses in place. Top that off with the Universal exec (Rob Wells, president of Universal Music's Global Digital Business department) excited about the "upcoming global rollout".
-Local downloads of purchased music to ANY computer
-Same music pinning
-20k song limit. no size limit
-sharing songs
-awesome web interface
-lightweight uploader
-allows for independent artists to upload their music without a label
-deep android/g+ intergration
I love it!
Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .
Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.
Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!
Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.
Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.
Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.
Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.
and it's not a Beta!!
Rather than "just another music service" Google's put their own twist on several features. The ones that stood out to me included:
Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .
Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.
Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!
Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.
Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.
Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.
Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.
and it's not a Beta!!
I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?
I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?
Good question. But I think having music available in a form such as this will reduce piracy in general.