Is Apple Willing To Challenge Label's Claims That Streaming Purchased Music Needs A License?
from the that-would-be-nice dept
For well over a decade, the major record labels have done everything possible to fight the concept of personal music lockers. This never made much sense to me, as these lockers were designed to give people who actually had purchased music more ways to listen to that music. That is, it made the label's music more valuable. You would, normally, think that this is a good thing that the labels would encourage. But, these are the major record labels we're talking about here. All they seemed concerned with is making sure that any time you get more value out of music, that you pay more. They claim, with somewhat dubious legal logic, that streaming music that someone has legally purchased still requires a separate license. That is, if you use a music locker to store MP3 files that you actually paid for from an authorized source like iTunes or Amazon, and then put them into a music locker and stream them, the labels want to get paid again.Michael Robertson, who runs just such a music locker company, MP3Tunes, notes that Apple appears to be quietly enabling this feature without making a big deal of it, perhaps because of ongoing negotiations with music labels over the widely rumored "iTunes-in-the-cloud" service. The newly enabled offering isn't iTunes-in-the-clouds, but does allow some basic music streaming functionality for users who have music files stored on an iDisk account. This seems perfectly reasonable, of course. It's your music, and your storage locker -- why shouldn't you be able to stream it without involving the record label?
The labels, particularly Universal Music, apparently disagree:
One company sure to be miffed at this new capability is Universal Music Group (UMG) the world's largest music company. They have told net companies who have inquired about offering personal cloud music services that backing up and downloading music files is OK with limitations, but streaming music files requires entering into a license and paying a per stream fee. Apple's service allows unlimited sharing (no username or password required) and now background streaming - all without a license from the record labels.As Robertson notes, this is Apple "testing the limits" of what they can do before the labels freak out (expect that shortly). However, the question really is how far will Apple go to fight this issue with the labels. In the past, Apple has seemed perfectly willing to cave to certain aspects of record label demands in an attempt to harm Apple's own competitors -- and I could see the same thing happening here as well. Even if Apple doesn't want to pay per-stream fees to the labels for previously purchased music, it might realize that it's still better situated than competitors. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't have much of a reason to fight for consumer rights in this scenario, even if it's testing the boundaries quietly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: itunes, music, rights, streaming
Companies: apple, universal music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's MY music so it's MY business what I do with it!
When I purchase my music, I don't sign a EULA agreeing that I can only play it on certain devices. Streaming to yourself – or even to yourself and a couple of friends – is not public use.
Tell me this - what constitutes 'streaming', and what are the boundaries? Do the the laws refer to specific distances? Specific network protocols? No, I don't think so.
Does Universal want a fee when I play music from MY PC to devices across MY personal wifi network? How is that different from playing music from MY Locker to MY devices?
Michael Robertson - Keep going! Fart in their general direction!
Apple - Ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's MY music so it's MY business what I do with it!
The record labels are failing. This is a pure and simple money grab. They will continue to push the limits charging people for every conceivable thing until the entire system they are pushing towards becomes so big a rats nest that no one can navigate their terms and conditions. At which point they will fail in a very rapid manor. Its called catastrophic failure look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple will only fight to protect its income. If Apple can make more money from streaming then they will fight for it - otherwise bye-bye streaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home streaming solution.
http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=65933&p=219644&hilit=dvd+bro wser&sid=85b7730153a97cbba6362ab2fa90a6e9#p219644
People creating streaming solutions for their families are criminals LoL
Who knew?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another scenario...
I know that they track streaming, but would the cloud service actually require ANOTHER fee to pay them to pay the artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then I want to see people try to defend copywrong and say those people were stealing from the holder of the copyrights(not necessarily the same as the producer).
The only band of thieves I see is the labels(and their associates), encroaching on peoples private lifes and trying to expand copyright even further than the ridiculous amount they already got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Music Business
I agree entirely with the idea of music lockers and streaming of music. There are ways for all parties to be happy. The key is getting everyone into a room to discuss it. That is the hard part.
With that being said, my music software company is attempting to do just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Business
People don't go out and take music CD's from the shelves, they are not stealing anything maybe limiting the market for sales but by no means preventing sales from being made that is just a falsehood spouted by some to make their views look good.
The one thing I agree is that there is a way for everyone to be happy
- Disband collection societies or make them produce a list that anyone can check.
- End the "possible damages" mentality and stop the F. levies.
- Give copywrong the right length of time i.e. 5 years or end copyrights.
- Make those rights not transferable.
- As have been noted many times people abuse copyrights, they need to be admonished or punished I think a 3 strikes would be great.
- Draw a line between commercial and non-commercial uses. Sharing was not piracy, never was and never will be stop trying to make it so. If sharing is killing music explain why people keep producing more and more and gasp getting paid, maybe is because there are multiple venues an artist can capitalize his talent i.e. multiple streams revenues. which is more than normal people get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Business
Wow! just wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Music Business
I think he is predicting the future. You know 10 years down the line when any mom and pop store has a larger Market Cap than UMG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Business
A correct version of your analogy would be to say that I purchased a donut but the seller wants to charge me more if I consume the donut in my car instead of in my kitchen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Major labels are calling for subscription fees
"...if a service can verify that a user has purchased a song (i.e. The service is Apple and they know the track was purchased through iTunes), then they should allow that song to be used on multiple devices. If a service can not verify that a song was purchased, a consumer should be charged a monthly fee, shared with labels, for multi-platform access."
I wrote my masters thesis on cloud music services and this is what I got from a personal interview question on the meaning of a streaming of single purchases.
I believe that majors are after subscription fees and if Apple was to limit its cloud service to legally purchased songs it wouldn't be having so much of a trouble with licenses.
Also if you are interested in the subject, check out my blog: http://musicinthecloud.tumblr.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Major labels are calling for subscription fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Major labels are calling for subscription fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloud Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cloud Service
I'm not a scumbag who is ripping off music. I BOUGHT it and I WILL play it ANY way I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am using my computer (my property) to send my music (I paid for it) using the internet line I pay for (monthly fees), to a streaming server (I pay for that service too) so I can listen to my music anywhere on any of my devices (which I also bought) and have to pay for the internet service to be able to use.
If they think they can add more fees to stuff I already pay way too much for then I can read the label on the CD's I buy and if I see UMG or any other G I won't buy it. They can bite me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming vs. Downloading
What happens if someone comes up with a device that downloads the entire song before playing? You get a quick enough connection and you can download the file in what, 15-30 secs? If the player is continuously downloading the playlist in the background, you would have seamless playing of files after a short wait.
Now I know that the argument here shouldn't be around streaming vs downloading being legal or not, but if you take this to the hypothetical end, we're simply waiting for 10G or something like that when you can download a 3MB music file in 0.5 second and then the argument is irrelevant - you're not streaming, you're just copying files you've purchased legally from some cloud storage and then playing them. I'd like to know what the industry would say to that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited sharing?
Is this really accurate? So you can pass out a URL or something to your iDisk locker, and anybody can access the music (or whatever) you have on there? Of *course* the labels would freak out about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlimited sharing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like we never get what we really need...
Lala... aquired by Apple... closed May 31.
Guess I better get a MyTunesRSS license. Nobody can close anything once I have the application since I have to run my own server. I have to keep it running but at least I am in control of what happens to my personal music server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the line of crap spouted by people who want to feel better about being a thief, you didn't want to pay for it, but you wanted the content Same difference, take cd off shelve or d/l a copy, its still theft, your depriving someone of being paid for what they did, and don't lie and say no, I go buy the CD after I d/l the one song out of 20 on the CD I liked, I don't believe you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]