Google Follows Amazon's Lead: Launching Music Locker, But Ignoring RIAA Demands For Licenses
from the good-move dept
After Amazon launched its music locker without first getting licenses from the record labels, there were rumors that Google might do the same. Google had been negotiating with the labels, but (not at all surprisingly) found that the labels were making ridiculous demands (lots of money and crazy restrictions that would handicap the service). It appears that the folks at Google are realizing what Amazon figured out a while ago: there doesn't appear to be any licensing needed to run a music locker service. After all, you don't need a license to listen to your own music stored on your own hard drive. Why should it be any different if that hard drive is connected to you via the internet?So it should come as little surprise that Google is, indeed, moving forward with its music locker launch, and doing so without label approval. It sounds like the offering will be similar to Amazon's, but with (significantly) more free storage.
The real question is how the labels will react. With Amazon, there was definitely some complaining and fretting and talk about how "something" had to be done, but none of the labels seemed willing to step up and sue. But with Google entering the market as well, and Apple likely to follow soon as well, you have to think that some label is going to take a flier on a lawsuit just to register the protest. Of course, in the meantime, I imagine everyone will be continuing to pay attention to the one current lawsuit in this space: EMI's suit against MP3Tunes, for which we should (finally?) be hearing some sort of decision before too long.
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: copyright, licenses, music locker
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have been saying that for a year plus now. The one problem I see is the anti trust issue of one company owning all the labels. It wouldn't be an issue if 4 large tech companies each bought one of the remaining big 4.
All of the labels are hemoraging money. Now would not be the time to actually purchase the music companies. Warner was sold this week for 3.3 billion which is way to high. EMI is going on the chopping block in a few months (??august??) expect a 2 plus billion dollar price tag. The time to buy them up is in two to three years when the CD sales have dried up totally, the online music sales have dropped by 40% world wide, and competition from free erodes the music companies ability to create new artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amazon = "One click download"
Google = "Download, ignore ad"
Apple = "Add the apple logo, charge extra 200%"
Microsoft = "Activate online or call 1-800..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not holding out a lot of hope because of the parent company for the USPS but who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Being free adds to the convenience factor by eliminating the mental transaction cost, but a reasonably priced flat rate plan does that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you chart out the trends it is a competition with free. In the end music is going to be nothing more than a promotional tool that is given away. It already is that way.
The labels already give away most new songs as promotional music. They can't say "here, distribute this on your web site" and then whine and complain that the music is being downloaded.
They are caught between a rock and a hard place. In order to promote music, and create hype they have to distribute the music. But once distributed, they loose all control over that music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
RIAA is a trade group under the employ of the major labels not the other way around. because of that RIAA cant fall under any sort of anti-trust pertaining to ownership since the ownership technically employs RIAA.
the fact that RIAA generally calls all the shots is an entirely different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple songs would only play on their devices.
Google's songs would mostly be muzak versions of better songs--much like how most of their search results lead to content farms.
Microsoft's songs would be "compatible" with a wide array of devices, but bad implementation would lead to most of your music being played backwards, the artwork would never render properly, and all mp3s will manipulate your registry.
I've got no beef with Amazon, but if they became a music publisher/label they wouldn't be able to act as a simple distribution service. They certainly couldn't allow competition from music outside of their roster onto their site.
Seriously, the idea that software companies should control music is very flawed. For god's sake, Google still hasn't figured out how to make Youtube profitable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
imma give you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to be sarcastic with much of this post cause a lot of it is really nonsensical ramblings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
rather than play word games with you here is whats wrong with your statement
apple: so what. strip the drm and/or convert it.. same exact thing that happens today so big whoop.
google: you seriously think that *IF* they bought a label the only versions of the songs you would be able to get are muzak covers? dont be dumb.
M$: do you really think they would A) buy a record label? and B) release tracks that are backwards mangled or otherwise unplayable? additionally, its a file numbnutz... there would be no way for it to make changes to anything simply because its not executable code on its own. and what idiot in their right mind would buy music in any digital format that could actually run its own code? only morons thats who.
the only thing you said that was not pure lunacy was the point about amazon and that one rather than being drug induced is instead just wrong.
there is no reason they could not distribute as well. they certainly have the infrastructure to do it more than any of the other three you mentioned (well, maybe apple, but apple would still only be able to match them in digital distribution, physical distribution is kind of a major function of amazon dontcha think?)
as for google figuring out how to make youtube profitable, it has as much to do with this as your post has to do with reality which is zilch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that should say THAT statement...not YOUR statement
two different people (or at least i sure the hell hope so)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't negotiate with crazy people
They will then wake up and smell the Internet and realize they could have been a big part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Rose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gah, typo, should have read:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If "something" needs to be done...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why buy them?
When your enemy is making a terrible mistake, don't interrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Invites
If there is a list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Invites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The labels need to embrace technology
Mandatory brain implant chips inserted at birth. Whenever you hear any copyrighted music, your credit card is automatically charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The labels need to embrace technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the only question i have for you on your point is:
who the hell cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read somewhere(maybe Boing Boing) that a public library has bought a license to stream all the music from Magnatune for 10K a year.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/09/ann-arbor-library-ac.html
Now we can all go out and buy a necomimi(Translation: cat ears, but this one is controlled by your brain waves) LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music locker
Ridiculous
Ignorant
Arrogant
A....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Labels, on the other hand, got my money. I'd say that's about when they should have started leaving me alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not get into making an entire album "one song" and now you have 20K albums...
Lot of ways to manipulate this monetarily.
Does seem easier to simply give the music away for free and charge for access to said free music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why US only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]