What really baffles me is why are all the other companies missing out on this, I mean when a record company can dictate that you owe them money every time you hear a song, or a game publisher doesn't want you to buy used games, then surely e.g. a car manufacturer is entitled to the same privileges...Maybe they should come up with a plan that requires you to pay them every time you use your car, and if you happen to buy a used one, you need to buy new seats or a steering wheel from the manufacturer...And that really isn't going to happen, so why are we letting the media companies get away with this..?
- Status
If RIAA can be upset about this, imagine one day they could be upset about users uploading music which they HAVE NOT purchased, and demand Amazon to search and ensure all music stored on their cloud drive are purchased or otherwise face legal actions.
Whoever tries to launch any services related to RIAA music is just asking for trouble in the long run. And whoever actually stores their music onto such service are too asking for trouble. One day RIAA will step in and say: show me the proof that all your music you stored in the cloud drive are legal.
Whoever tries to launch any services related to RIAA music is just asking for trouble in the long run. And whoever actually stores their music onto such service are too asking for trouble. One day RIAA will step in and say: show me the proof that all your music you stored in the cloud drive are legal.
I'm sorry but no one I know pays for their music. I can guarantee 99% of you don't pay for it either. If the record companies want their money, maybe they should file lawsuits against every single torrent provider and music downloader. For gods sake I can download whatever song I want on my Android for free within a couple of minutes. The avenues to downloading free music are massive, and so long as they exist no one gives a crap if the record companies are missing out. CD's/Itunes are way to expensive to begin with.
[citation][nom]cryptz[/nom]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.[/citation]
The problem is that Amazon is not "Streaming media" in the same manner as other streaming media services. They are sending back files the customers own. Streaming media is fees and licenses are set up for companies to stream media the customer often does not own.
When the customer owns it, they already have a license to use it however they feel like within the bounds of the law. Amazon is just pulling and pushing bits that belong to the customer (strike that, are licensed for the customer to use).
The problem is that Amazon is not "Streaming media" in the same manner as other streaming media services. They are sending back files the customers own. Streaming media is fees and licenses are set up for companies to stream media the customer often does not own.
When the customer owns it, they already have a license to use it however they feel like within the bounds of the law. Amazon is just pulling and pushing bits that belong to the customer (strike that, are licensed for the customer to use).
dark_knight33
Distinguished
- Aug 16, 2006
- 128
- 0
- 18,630
@bsbsbsbs
That may be true, but it's an ignorant point of view from someone who clearly isn't old enough to really remember what it was like before the "Digital music revolution". Of course nobody you know pays for music, because younger age groups nowadays think because they can get some digital product for free, that means it should be free. It's ignorant and short sighted. The people that work to make that product, yeah, they *do* need to pay their bills. Not everyone involved in movies & music are over-paid millionaires.
I'm certainly no fan of record companies, or the RIAA/MPAA as well. I'm not defending them, but the only reason you and others like you are able to download it for free is because people that understand content providers do need to be paid are still paying.
So go ahead, champion piracy like some social activist "sticking it to the man". In the end, when enough people are stealing/pirating the music instead of buying it, the status quo that currently allows you (and apparently *everyone* you know) to do what you are doing will come to a very quick end. Not because you will get sued, caught, or in any way actually held responsible, but because the content will simply stop coming. It's history. It has happened with other industries, and although I'll have a party the day the RIAA & MPAA die, I'm not counting the days until it happens.
That may be true, but it's an ignorant point of view from someone who clearly isn't old enough to really remember what it was like before the "Digital music revolution". Of course nobody you know pays for music, because younger age groups nowadays think because they can get some digital product for free, that means it should be free. It's ignorant and short sighted. The people that work to make that product, yeah, they *do* need to pay their bills. Not everyone involved in movies & music are over-paid millionaires.
I'm certainly no fan of record companies, or the RIAA/MPAA as well. I'm not defending them, but the only reason you and others like you are able to download it for free is because people that understand content providers do need to be paid are still paying.
So go ahead, champion piracy like some social activist "sticking it to the man". In the end, when enough people are stealing/pirating the music instead of buying it, the status quo that currently allows you (and apparently *everyone* you know) to do what you are doing will come to a very quick end. Not because you will get sued, caught, or in any way actually held responsible, but because the content will simply stop coming. It's history. It has happened with other industries, and although I'll have a party the day the RIAA & MPAA die, I'm not counting the days until it happens.
Music the way we now it is DEAD!.. I don't buy music anymore, I don't bother downloading it either!
kinggraves
Distinguished
- May 14, 2010
- 445
- 0
- 18,940
[citation][nom]dark_knight33[/nom]@bsbsbsbsThat may be true, but it's an ignorant point of view from someone who clearly isn't old enough to really remember what it was like before the "Digital music revolution". Of course nobody you know pays for music, because younger age groups nowadays think because they can get some digital product for free, that means it should be free. It's ignorant and short sighted. The people that work to make that product, yeah, they *do* need to pay their bills. Not everyone involved in movies & music are over-paid millionaires. I'm certainly no fan of record companies, or the RIAA/MPAA as well. I'm not defending them, but the only reason you and others like you are able to download it for free is because people that understand content providers do need to be paid are still paying. So go ahead, champion piracy like some social activist "sticking it to the man". In the end, when enough people are stealing/pirating the music instead of buying it, the status quo that currently allows you (and apparently *everyone* you know) to do what you are doing will come to a very quick end. Not because you will get sued, caught, or in any way actually held responsible, but because the content will simply stop coming. It's history. It has happened with other industries, and although I'll have a party the day the RIAA & MPAA die, I'm not counting the days until it happens.[/citation]
The thing is...it won't stop coming. If you want to talk about history, music has been played for thousands of years by people that ENJOY playing music. They don't do it because it's a job, they do it for fun. Those people still exist and will always exist. People that are happy just to have an audience for their shows. The artists that actually back up the RIAA in this "antipiracy war" are the spoiled millionaires. Metallica, Axl Rose, Bon Jovi, Prince. They all want desperately to believe that their records aren't selling because of piracy, when it's really just that they went out of fashion years ago and haven't reinvented themselves.
The recording industry isn't necessary like it used to be. Modern technology makes it so that people that know what they're doing can put together a studio quality record on their own with a PC, then put it up on the internet and sell it themselves, without any involvement from record producers. You think they lose money on this? How much of a cut do you think the record label takes to produce, market and put their album into stores? The RIAA has the money to pay for high priced lawsuits across the board because of the massive cuts they take. People don't want their money going to those clowns anymore, they dug their own graves by trying too often to manufacture stars instead of finding talented people.
Remove the recording industry, let people support the bands themselves by buying songs straight from them. Make those bands actually go out and play venues for their daily bread, not because they have a whim to go on tour. The bands that remain are the ones that are working hard and playing because they love to play music. It's time to put an end to overfed rock stars who've never had talent and are only on the charts because the recording industry decided they would be and sold their image.
The thing is...it won't stop coming. If you want to talk about history, music has been played for thousands of years by people that ENJOY playing music. They don't do it because it's a job, they do it for fun. Those people still exist and will always exist. People that are happy just to have an audience for their shows. The artists that actually back up the RIAA in this "antipiracy war" are the spoiled millionaires. Metallica, Axl Rose, Bon Jovi, Prince. They all want desperately to believe that their records aren't selling because of piracy, when it's really just that they went out of fashion years ago and haven't reinvented themselves.
The recording industry isn't necessary like it used to be. Modern technology makes it so that people that know what they're doing can put together a studio quality record on their own with a PC, then put it up on the internet and sell it themselves, without any involvement from record producers. You think they lose money on this? How much of a cut do you think the record label takes to produce, market and put their album into stores? The RIAA has the money to pay for high priced lawsuits across the board because of the massive cuts they take. People don't want their money going to those clowns anymore, they dug their own graves by trying too often to manufacture stars instead of finding talented people.
Remove the recording industry, let people support the bands themselves by buying songs straight from them. Make those bands actually go out and play venues for their daily bread, not because they have a whim to go on tour. The bands that remain are the ones that are working hard and playing because they love to play music. It's time to put an end to overfed rock stars who've never had talent and are only on the charts because the recording industry decided they would be and sold their image.
[citation][nom]tntom[/nom]Seriously, is there ever a time they are not upset? I think it should read "Record Labels Jealous Over Amazon's Cloud Drive"[/citation]
They aren't jealous, they try to hinder or at least stall ALL forms of evolution that could drop their dinosaur ways of distributing their goods. The dinosaurs died out, so will the record industry as we know it.
I hope the musicians who creates the music will get a good and fair way to distribute THEIR music and not being riped off by a middleman who takes all the revenue leaving only the scraps, that is what the record labels fear and internet truly opened that door in a big way!
RIP RIAA
They aren't jealous, they try to hinder or at least stall ALL forms of evolution that could drop their dinosaur ways of distributing their goods. The dinosaurs died out, so will the record industry as we know it.
I hope the musicians who creates the music will get a good and fair way to distribute THEIR music and not being riped off by a middleman who takes all the revenue leaving only the scraps, that is what the record labels fear and internet truly opened that door in a big way!
RIP RIAA
Griffolion
Distinguished
- May 28, 2009
- 263
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]They aren't jealous, they try to hinder or at least stall ALL forms of evolution that could drop their dinosaur ways of distributing their goods. The dinosaurs died out, so will the record industry as we know it.I hope the musicians who creates the music will get a good and fair way to distribute THEIR music and not being riped off by a middleman who takes all the revenue leaving only the scraps, that is what the record labels fear and internet truly opened that door in a big way!RIP RIAA[/citation]
I agree with this, the music industry is slowly changing, this is their way of resisting that change despite the fact that it's a futile effort. No longer will the 'big' labels exist, it will more likely evolve into smaller, self publishing labels through digital means.
I agree with this, the music industry is slowly changing, this is their way of resisting that change despite the fact that it's a futile effort. No longer will the 'big' labels exist, it will more likely evolve into smaller, self publishing labels through digital means.
It may sound less catchy and be a bit off the point but is there going to be an article along the lines of "Phone networks providing unlimited data use / parents whose children have capped data plans Upset Over Amazon's Cloud Drive"?
I'd personally just go with multiple copies on physical media. Amazon's position should probably to negotiate and should EMI etc not be prepared to offer 'reasonable' terms (i.e. negligible, if any, payment) then simply deny access to the service in respect of files tagged as related to EMI. Should there be pirated music (bad people) then such tagging might have been removed, but noone who paid EMI could use the service. So EMI could choose between trying to get revenue and excluding more of the retail user base.
I'd personally just go with multiple copies on physical media. Amazon's position should probably to negotiate and should EMI etc not be prepared to offer 'reasonable' terms (i.e. negligible, if any, payment) then simply deny access to the service in respect of files tagged as related to EMI. Should there be pirated music (bad people) then such tagging might have been removed, but noone who paid EMI could use the service. So EMI could choose between trying to get revenue and excluding more of the retail user base.
dark_knight33
Distinguished
- Aug 16, 2006
- 128
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]The thing is...it won't stop coming. If you want to talk about history, music has been played for thousands of years by people that ENJOY playing music. They don't do it because it's a job, they do it for fun. Those people still exist and will always exist. People that are happy just to have an audience for their shows. The artists that actually back up the RIAA in this "antipiracy war" are the spoiled millionaires. Metallica, Axl Rose, Bon Jovi, Prince. They all want desperately to believe that their records aren't selling because of piracy, when it's really just that they went out of fashion years ago and haven't reinvented themselves.The recording industry isn't necessary like it used to be. Modern technology makes it so that people that know what they're doing can put together a studio quality record on their own with a PC, then put it up on the internet and sell it themselves, without any involvement from record producers. You think they lose money on this? How much of a cut do you think the record label takes to produce, market and put their album into stores? The RIAA has the money to pay for high priced lawsuits across the board because of the massive cuts they take. People don't want their money going to those clowns anymore, they dug their own graves by trying too often to manufacture stars instead of finding talented people.Remove the recording industry, let people support the bands themselves by buying songs straight from them. Make those bands actually go out and play venues for their daily bread, not because they have a whim to go on tour. The bands that remain are the ones that are working hard and playing because they love to play music. It's time to put an end to overfed rock stars who've never had talent and are only on the charts because the recording industry decided they would be and sold their image.[/citation]
Have you been involved in producing an actual album? I have. I know what "it takes" to do that. The problem is, real musicians just want to play music, not learn how to operate ADATs or master multi-track recording software. Real musicians don't want to spend the time building up a network of contacts to get their music on the radio. They don't want to learn how to use photoshop and create album artwork, or buy the equipment to take production quality photos for ad posters, or video equipment to make a music video. Real musicians play music, and that's about all they do well or even want to do for that matter.
The people that do those other things, their the ones getting screwed. They don't get the big cuts of profits, salaries, or long term residuals from music sales like the band or record companies. Real hardworking people do get squeezed out when an album doesn't sell. Do you really think that the people at the top are the only ones "suffering" from piracy? Don't be naive. Record company owners will suck up the profits for as long as they can and suck dry everyone below them.
I didn't set the prices of the CD; I didn't even decide which tracks would go on the album. However, I got paid only when an album sold. These were *real* musicians, not some record company. Every-time someone copied the CD for a friend, *I* was out another payment for doing the album graphics. So yeah, music pirates did eat my lunch, and I'm so far from the top I have to look up just to see straight. People like me don't get paid because people like you have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. No, you don't deserve or somehow have the *right* to get the music for free, just because you can.
Real musicians do work hard, and so does everyone else involved. We're not all a bunch of fat-cats smoking cigars behind some desk plotting about how we are going to spoon-feed the next load of crap to the masses so we can add another wing to our summer homes. Sometimes it's just a couple guys trying to keep the electric bill paid.
FWIW, I haven't bought a single metallica album, purchased a ticket, or even downloaded/pirated a song of theirs since they sued their fans for using Napster. I was given one of their CDs as a Christmas gift years ago, and the damn thing is still in the wrapper collecting dust. I go so far as to change the station when they come on. I loved that band, grew up listening to them, but decided a long time ago which side of the digital debate I was on. That doesn't mean people like me don't deserve to get paid for our hard work.
Think about that the next time you use TPB to screw over-paid rock stars.
Have you been involved in producing an actual album? I have. I know what "it takes" to do that. The problem is, real musicians just want to play music, not learn how to operate ADATs or master multi-track recording software. Real musicians don't want to spend the time building up a network of contacts to get their music on the radio. They don't want to learn how to use photoshop and create album artwork, or buy the equipment to take production quality photos for ad posters, or video equipment to make a music video. Real musicians play music, and that's about all they do well or even want to do for that matter.
The people that do those other things, their the ones getting screwed. They don't get the big cuts of profits, salaries, or long term residuals from music sales like the band or record companies. Real hardworking people do get squeezed out when an album doesn't sell. Do you really think that the people at the top are the only ones "suffering" from piracy? Don't be naive. Record company owners will suck up the profits for as long as they can and suck dry everyone below them.
I didn't set the prices of the CD; I didn't even decide which tracks would go on the album. However, I got paid only when an album sold. These were *real* musicians, not some record company. Every-time someone copied the CD for a friend, *I* was out another payment for doing the album graphics. So yeah, music pirates did eat my lunch, and I'm so far from the top I have to look up just to see straight. People like me don't get paid because people like you have an unwarranted sense of entitlement. No, you don't deserve or somehow have the *right* to get the music for free, just because you can.
Real musicians do work hard, and so does everyone else involved. We're not all a bunch of fat-cats smoking cigars behind some desk plotting about how we are going to spoon-feed the next load of crap to the masses so we can add another wing to our summer homes. Sometimes it's just a couple guys trying to keep the electric bill paid.
FWIW, I haven't bought a single metallica album, purchased a ticket, or even downloaded/pirated a song of theirs since they sued their fans for using Napster. I was given one of their CDs as a Christmas gift years ago, and the damn thing is still in the wrapper collecting dust. I go so far as to change the station when they come on. I loved that band, grew up listening to them, but decided a long time ago which side of the digital debate I was on. That doesn't mean people like me don't deserve to get paid for our hard work.
Think about that the next time you use TPB to screw over-paid rock stars.
bildo123
Distinguished
- Feb 6, 2007
- 205
- 0
- 18,830
[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]
Tell me about it. I went to listen to an album I bought about a year ago (from Amazon) and I noticed some of the songs had annoying little 'blips' like they were corrupted files or something. I locate the FAQ and tell them about how could I go about re-downloading the album. Sorry. No can do. Only doable within 90 days of purchase....Really? Why not 95 days, or 152 days? So basically I was stuck and told to make a backup as soon as possible. What I want to know is what is so majestic and magical with their "90 days" policy. That's quite alright though, I resorted back to an old method of gathering my music and had my album back at 320kps quality per track in less then 10 minutes...heck, perhaps I should stick to this method since I won't have to worry about trivial BS like I just mentioned. The irony of good ol' DRM.
Tell me about it. I went to listen to an album I bought about a year ago (from Amazon) and I noticed some of the songs had annoying little 'blips' like they were corrupted files or something. I locate the FAQ and tell them about how could I go about re-downloading the album. Sorry. No can do. Only doable within 90 days of purchase....Really? Why not 95 days, or 152 days? So basically I was stuck and told to make a backup as soon as possible. What I want to know is what is so majestic and magical with their "90 days" policy. That's quite alright though, I resorted back to an old method of gathering my music and had my album back at 320kps quality per track in less then 10 minutes...heck, perhaps I should stick to this method since I won't have to worry about trivial BS like I just mentioned. The irony of good ol' DRM.
mdillenbeck
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2008
- 283
- 0
- 18,930
If I am understanding how the Amazon service works, then storing my music on a Windows Home Server and streaming it to another PC or internet TV would constitute streaming internet music - thus the RIAA should be able to sue the hell out of private individuals. Sad.
There is a paradigm shift, and yet again the established institution wants to use an outdated and unfair business model to make profit. They need to modernize their model and accept higher volume with lower per unit profit - as the digital age makes that possible. They also get to shed the significant time and material costs of producing physical media (until the telcomms totally jack the rates for data on their industry).
As for not buying - I've proudly not been buying or pirating music for over 5 years now. I'll go to small local band concerts, but not the big names anymore. Also I don't buy used, as someone had to originally buy it new - and that helps feed the hungry hungry RIAA. Unfortunately, I am a small minority, so the message is not getting across to them. If only people could restrain themselves from purchasing music for a measly 1-2 years (using their existing collection or throwing money to local bands who self-produce), then maybe their policies would change... or they would die a fiscally painful death.
There is a paradigm shift, and yet again the established institution wants to use an outdated and unfair business model to make profit. They need to modernize their model and accept higher volume with lower per unit profit - as the digital age makes that possible. They also get to shed the significant time and material costs of producing physical media (until the telcomms totally jack the rates for data on their industry).
As for not buying - I've proudly not been buying or pirating music for over 5 years now. I'll go to small local band concerts, but not the big names anymore. Also I don't buy used, as someone had to originally buy it new - and that helps feed the hungry hungry RIAA. Unfortunately, I am a small minority, so the message is not getting across to them. If only people could restrain themselves from purchasing music for a measly 1-2 years (using their existing collection or throwing money to local bands who self-produce), then maybe their policies would change... or they would die a fiscally painful death.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Lenovo Yoga book 9i vs. Asus Zenbook duo
- Started by szcad
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Question Transferring iPhone 8 (iOS 14.5) to new 15: Upgrade 8’s iOS & best method of transfer
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter