Record Labels Upset Over Amazon's Cloud Drive

Status
Not open for further replies.

jskilnyk

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
35
0
18,580
0
Of course they would be upset. Less money in their pockets. Thats all that matters to then anymore. Screw producing good music. Its how many Bens they can stuff in their pockets.
 

restatement3dofted

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2010
165
0
18,630
0
Maybe I'm just not understanding exactly how this service will work, but doesn't this service just offer users the ability to stream music they've already purchased, but which happens to be stored remotely by Amazon? I.e., isn't Amazon's role here just a storage provider, rather than a streaming service like Pandora? Why would Amazon have to obtain licenses for music streaming when all it's doing is providing a means for users to access their own, legally-purchased music?

What am I missing? How is this any different than remotely accessing your PC from another terminal, and listening to your music that way? Damn record labels make my head hurt.
 

mikem_90

Distinguished
Jun 24, 2010
284
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Restatement3dOfTed[/nom]Maybe I'm just not understanding exactly how this service will work, but doesn't this service just offer users the ability to stream music they've already purchased, but which happens to be stored remotely by Amazon? I.e., isn't Amazon's role here just a storage provider, rather than a streaming service like Pandora? Why would Amazon have to obtain licenses for music streaming when all it's doing is providing a means for users to access their own, legally-purchased music?What am I missing? How is this any different than remotely accessing your PC from another terminal, and listening to your music that way? Damn record labels make my head hurt.[/citation]


Any time you're not paying for a special exclusive license for listening to music even if you own it, they get upset. They show a contempt for any idea of "Fair use".

This is from labels like Sony, that was saying that using products they make and sell, which are designed to use music you own, are in fact infringing on their copywrights. By loading music off YOUR CDs and onto the devices, you are somehow a criminal.

Vote with your dollars people, don't buy music by big labels, and definitely none giving money to the RIAA/MPAA. Buy used if you have to, don't contribute new dollars to these scum buckets.
 

Parrdacc

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
391
0
18,930
0
"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 unnamed executive said"

Really? Seriously? Never? Wow I must be the only one that's heard of such things then.
 

zak_mckraken

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2004
868
0
18,930
0
@Restatement3dOfTed : I'm pretty much thinking the same. But as far as the music industry is concerned, any means for the end user to listen to licenced music needs to be paid somehow, even if it's already paid for. Ex.: You don't get to download an album for free even if you purchased it on CD earlier.
 

millerm84

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2009
86
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Restatement3dOfTed[/nom]Maybe I'm just not understanding exactly how this service will work, but doesn't this service just offer users the ability to stream music they've already purchased, but which happens to be stored remotely by Amazon? I.e., isn't Amazon's role here just a storage provider, rather than a streaming service like Pandora? Why would Amazon have to obtain licenses for music streaming when all it's doing is providing a means for users to access their own, legally-purchased music?What am I missing? How is this any different than remotely accessing your PC from another terminal, and listening to your music that way? Damn record labels make my head hurt.[/citation]


Yeah I'm confused about this as well, you purchase the music, you upload it to a remote server (look Ma a cloud), and stream said music to your phone/networked device. I'm missing where I or Amazon needs a license to change how I deliver music (that I bought legally) to my music playing device of choice. At some point I fully expect to have a EULA to sign every time I buy a new record or single.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
277
0
18,930
0
This has nothing to do with less money in the music industry's pocket.

Amazon allows cloud storage of purchased music. It also allows users to purchase music directly from them.

Any "streaming" is of already purchased music. The music industry only has a case if the music has not been purchased.

Amazon is not offering some kind of subscription based streaming service without paying royalties rather is only offering users to store their legally owned music on the cloud for playback.

Music industry should fail miserably here, if they dont then they can suck it, I dont need cloud storage to listen to my music.
 
G

Guest

Guest
What this offers over Spotify, except you've to actually BUY something?
 

jskilnyk

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
35
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]This has nothing to do with less money in the music industry's pocket.Amazon allows cloud storage of purchased music. It also allows users to purchase music directly from them.Any "streaming" is of already purchased music. The music industry only has a case if the music has not been purchased.Amazon is not offering some kind of subscription based streaming service without paying royalties rather is only offering users to store their legally owned music on the cloud for playback.Music industry should fail miserably here, if they dont then they can suck it, I dont need cloud storage to listen to my music.[/citation]

So another words they will lose money in one form correct?
 

cryptz

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2004
8
0
18,510
0
if i am reading it right i believe sony is saying it grants amazon a license to sell media, it does not grant amazon the right to sell and stream media. I think what sony is implying is that they would charge amazon a higher fee during the song sale in order to allow amazon to both sell, and also give its users the ability to stream the song. I do agree it seems stupid and trivial, but I imagine that will be sonys argument.
 

tntom

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2001
114
0
18,630
0
Seriously, is there ever a time they are not upset? I think it should read "Record Labels Jealous Over Amazon's Cloud Drive"
 

kinggraves

Distinguished
May 14, 2010
445
0
18,940
1
It'd be pretty funny if Amazon, by far one of the largest online retailers, decided to stop selling music. I wonder if that would affect record sales a bit.
 

SmileyTPB1

Distinguished
Jul 26, 2006
86
0
18,580
0
The record companies have already shut down at least 2 major web sites that I know of over the years that have allowed you to do the exact same thing. It's not a new idea. The problem is that the record companies have been able to get legal precedence that it is somehow illegal remotely access music that you already own despite what copyright and fair use laws have already been established about the matter. I have talked to a couple of lawyers over the years who understand both the laws and the issues and they have told me that what the RIAA has been able to get away with is criminal. They somehow got a judge who did not know anything about copyright law or consumer law or anything to preside over a hearing to shut down mymp3.com which offered cloud storage and streaming service over 5 years ago, even though the law clearly states that a consumer has the legal right to do that very thing. What's worse it that over a decade ago in the midst of the whole Napster thing the RIAA got congress to give them the right to stop digital distribution of music by "ANY MEANS NECESSARY" that would include distributing viruses to damage or destroy your computer.

As the music industry has changed and they are no longer able to exploit the musicians they way they used to they have decided that in the digital age that they need to exploit the consumer instead. They are taking the position of trying to get the consumer to pay them per song each time the song is listened too. In the last decade the radio stations struggled to get online streaming going early on because the RIAA was demanding that they should be payed more money if the radio station streamed the music over the internet. They were able to halt online streaming by big companies like Jacor and Clear Channel. Eventually the radio stations won out but the result was that the RIAA got more money.

The RIAA says that they are loosing money because of the internet and the digital age but I don't thing that is true. I thing they are just using as the reason to tax every song every time it is listened to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
T Streaming Video & TVs 5
P Streaming Video & TVs 3
C Streaming Video & TVs 3
Jovance Todorov Streaming Video & TVs 2
P Streaming Video & TVs 5
Z Streaming Video & TVs 1
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
MinnieLee712 Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 4
B Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
P Streaming Video & TVs 2
J Streaming Video & TVs 3
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
B Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 33

ASK THE COMMUNITY