Music in the Cloud: How to do it?

[diogen]

Along the same lock-in lines from the former Engadget editor...
iCloud and Apple’s truth: can you win if you don’t play? | This is my next...

Steve Jobs opined on stage at WWDC that “a lot of people think the cloud is just a hard drive in the sky.” Oddly, what was meant to be a dig at the competition came off to me as a perfectly accurate description of the service he was in the process of introducing. While competitors like Google and Microsoft continue to pursue a strategy of “you everywhere” with front-facing web products that allow you to create and collaborate with nothing more than a connection and relatively modern browser, Apple seems to be moving almost backwards. Sure, syncing our devices is clearly an important and yet-to-be-solved problem, but Cupertino isn’t just improving sync across devices. It also seems to be concluding that it can’t — or won’t — compete on the web, and I think that’s a mistake.

Diogen.

 

[diogen]

Having renounced the Web - or announce the creation of Jobs' Web 2; semantics really - Apple
has to build up its locked-in userbase as big as possible as fast as possible.

And here is the first step in that direction...
Apple starts selling unlocked iPhone 4 for $649 -- Engadget

Diogen.

 

[diogen]

Nice article (posted on ars first)
Are Google Music and Amazon Cloud Player Illegal? | Epicenter | Wired.com
Brings back some memories and shows how compressed internet time has become...

Maybe this time the RI and MP Ass. of America will get what they deserve?

Diogen.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Its not like Google Music and Amazon Cloud let you SHARE your music. Its really no different than a mobile player -- one tied to either a web browser or a mobile app, which provides access to YOUR LIBRARY, whether that library is legitimate or not.

If Amazon Cloud is illegal then so is everyone's iPod. Just not seeing the issue.

 

[diogen]

Just not seeing the issue.

Did you read the article?
It is MP3.com 10+ years later. MP3.com, that was sued out of existence.

This scorched-earth strategy worked. MP3.com founder Michael Robertson describes the record labels’ legal strategy as “a very effective campaign of terror.” By making examples of Napster, MP3.com, and other early innovators, the music industry was able to scare most of Silicon Valley away from developing technologies that would disrupt their industry.

Also, I don't think there is a chance to avoid a legal showdown between Google/Amazon and RIAA. Because Apple pays and these guys don't.

Waiting for the outcome of this case....

Diogen.

 

[isaacmorseMI]

Did you read the article?
It is MP3.com 10+ years later. MP3.com, that was sued out of existence.

Also, I don't think there is a chance to avoid a legal showdown between Google/Amazon and RIAA. Because Apple pays and these guys don't.

Waiting for the outcome of this case....

Diogen.

He is running MP3Tunes now. Another cloud service. I have an account with them.

http://www.mp3tunes.com/cb/about/

Sent from my iPad 2 using the SatelliteGuys App

 

[diogen]

He is running MP3Tunes now.

And sued again.

And that is exactly what the case I linked to twice in this thread, is all about
Google and Amazon cloud music nears judgment day ? The Register

Diogen.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Did you read the article?
It is MP3.com 10+ years later. MP3.com, that was sued out of existence.


Also, I don't think there is a chance to avoid a legal showdown between Google/Amazon and RIAA. Because Apple pays and these guys don't.

Waiting for the outcome of this case....

Diogen.

I read the article, and still think its b.s. Points to everything wrong with intellectual property law and abuse of the court system by major corporations. I stick with my argument that Google Music is the same as an ipod. BECAUSE you can't share with others with it. Its not uTorrent, or original Napster, or Limewire. Its a password protected file streaming package.

 

[diogen]

I read the article, and still think its b.s. Points to everything wrong with intellectual property law and abuse of the court system by major corporations.

Hmmm...
When did "abuse of the court system" mean they are going to be proven wrong?

I stick with my argument that Google Music is the same as an ipod.

I'm sorry I can't refer to first hand experience:
Does "the ipod" system mean you can use it outside the Apple ecosystem?
For example: use any non-Apple player to play it?
If not, it's not the same.
If yes, why did Apple make a deal with the labels?

BECAUSE you can't share with others with it.

Did MP3.com allow to share it with others?

Its not uTorrent, or original Napster, or Limewire.

It is not.
It is the same as the Apple service discussed in this very thread:
music - ANY music - on the provider's cloud.
Apple pays for it and Google/Amazon don't.
Do you believe paying RIAA is optional?

Diogen.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Wow. Not sure why you are being so combative. iPod, Zune, whatever, an "mp3" player which in common parlance is often referred to by the most common player, the iPod.

My point is simple. You copy your music to your "portable music player" and play it. You copy your music to Google Music Player or Amazon Cloud Player, and play it. The intellectual property claim of the RIAA is based on the idea that either 1) you should PAY for every single copy of your PURCHASED music; or 2) They want to hold the cloud player liable for hosting illegally-obtained music. The problem is that the US' intellectual property law is based on a 19th century model, and has been structured over the years to be biased towards the RIAA and such. The "abuses of the court system" is that they have used their financial and political clout to bludgeon anyone who gets in their way, and the laws (both passed by Congress, and through case law) have favored them.

I am arguing that we need a complete and total restructuring of intellectual property law in the United States.

Yes, Apple paid off the RIAA. I get it; and Amazon and Google did not, so the RIAA's vulture lawyers will descend on them. But these services do not allow you to just copy your music to the cloud and then easily share it with others. Its tied to YOUR Amazon or Google Account.

 

[Hall]

Yes, Apple paid off the RIAA. I get it; and Amazon and Google did not, so the RIAA's vulture lawyers will descend on them. But these services do not allow you to just copy your music to the cloud and then easily share it with others. Its tied to YOUR Amazon or Google Account.

Let them take on Google and/or Amazon. I'm not saying who will win, but clearly Google and Amazon will put up a fight and if we're all lucky, a precedent will be set !

 

[diogen]

Wow. Not sure why you are being so combative.

You have no idea what me being combative looks like...

I am arguing that we need a complete and total restructuring of intellectual property law in the United States.

Then we have nothing left to argue about.
Your statement "Just not seeing the issue" conveyed a different message...

Diogen.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Let them take on Google and/or Amazon. I'm not saying who will win, but clearly Google and Amazon will put up a fight and if we're all lucky, a precedent will be set !

The more I think about it, the more I think you are right. Its one thing to take on mp3.com; another to take on Google and Amazon, two seriously big corporations with lots of money behind them, which equates into a well armed group of lawyers.

 

[diogen]

HP joins Google and Amazon in offering "cloud" storage for music without any payments going to the labels.
HP preempts iCloud with Play sync beta for webOS, Mac, PC | Electronista

The music syncing service lets users stream their music collections both from webOS devices such as the TouchPad as well as Macs and Windows PCs.

Diogen.

 

[diogen]

And now Microsoft plans to join the list of (presumably cloud) music service providers
Ballmer: Microsoft will launch Xbox Music this fall -- Engadget

Will they pay RIAA for the privilege?

Diogen.

 

[diogen]

It looks like this "laziness" on both sides: labels - to sue Amazon/Google and "cloud" builders" - to be more active in negotiating a license will last until August when the rebels will face their "judgment" day. This is when the judge is expected to rule in the case EMI against music locker MP3tunes.

And the ruling is out.
Record labels get hollow victory in MP3tunes infringement case
While not a win for Robertson by any metric, Google and Amazon have nothing to worry about: music lockers are eligible for safe harbor.
Therefore, unless labels appeal (likely), Google can think about taking the Beta moniker off its "music in the cloud" service...

We could be witnessing an historic event: RIAA is getting what they deserve since Napster days - a legal F*** You!

Diogen.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

And the ruling is out.
Record labels get hollow victory in MP3tunes infringement case
While not a win for Robertson by any metric, Google and Amazon have nothing to worry about: music lockers are eligible for safe harbor.
Therefore, unless labels appeal (likely), Google can think about taking the Beta moniker off its "music in the cloud" service...

We could be witnessing an historic event: RIAA is getting what they deserve since Napster days - a legal F*** You!

Diogen.

Amen to that!!!!

Although I have to say its more than a little confusing in terms of the ruling.