Techdirt. Stories filed under "cloud"

Motion Picture Association: The Cloud Is A Threat To Us And The Best Response Is Censorship

Mike Masnick — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:33:09 PDT

The Motion Picture Association is somewhat notorious for flipping out over every new technology and how it will, without doubt, mean death for them. Most famously, of course, the prediction that the VCR would be the "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry a mere six years before home video revenues outstripped box office revenues. However, this seems to be somewhat instinctual behavior. Everything new must automatically be classified as a threat, and the best response is to kill it outright. The latest version of this appears to be the threat of (gasp!) "cloud computing." At a get together in Hong Kong, in which the movie industry was supposed to be talking about "protecting the screen community in the cloud era" apparently there was the typical predictions of doom with little in the way of suggestions. But there were some. Frank Rittman, the SVP of the Motion Picture Association, explained that the cloud was evil and censorship was the answer:

The news was even worse from Frank Rittman, SVP of the Motion Picture Association, Asia Pacific, who stated that potential pirates have all the digital tools they need to make illegal media sharing more viral than ever. “Digital online technology has enabled new channels of delivery for entertainment media,” he said. “The cloud also represents a threat in that it facilitates piracy, and the pirates seem to have gotten into this space first.”

The answer to both problems, Rittman believes, is pushing for Internet Service Providers to block sites known to be troublemakers when it comes to Internet piracy. He pointed to examples of the practice in Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea as models of how this has worked as a low-cost way of cutting down on piracy that has met with some success.

He also complains that Hong Kong won't pass a law like this because the process has been "hijacked by extremists." Well, that's one way of looking at it. The alternative way is that arguing that flat out censorship of entire sites because you have been too slow to adapt, is crazy talk and is significantly more extremist than anything anyone else has been arguing. If you want to go after direct infringement, go after that. But censorship of entire sites is going way too far. And, contrary to his claims, it has not "worked" nor has it "met with some success." It hasn't driven people back to paying for movies.

Really, Rittman's statements are an example of the problem. Here are people so focused on "stopping piracy" that they don't care about the consequences of their own actions on innovation, nor do they care about whether or not it helps their own bottom line.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Want To Shake Down Cloud Music & Video Providers? Patent For Sale!

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:33:00 PDT

When we talk about patent trolls, what many people don't recognize is how often many of these patents get passed around to and from different entities, often until someone sees an opportunity to force lots of companies into licenses, or to sue them. Failing that, many companies often feel compelled to buy ridiculously broad patents, just to keep themselves from being sued. Whole businesses have been built up around the practice of basically selling these patents, in which they more or less are selling people a right to shake down others. Except that kind of stuff rarely is talked about in the public. Michael Robertson, however, passed along an example of one that we thought might be worth exploring. An operation called Capital Legal Group is going around "shopping" an excessively broad "cloud storage patent" for sale, highlighting that it's already identified three infringers, with more expected soon.

I'm sure they reached out to Roberston, since he runs a cloud content service, though they certainly don't indicate if they think he's infringing directly. The full pitch is embedded below, but here are some highlights:

To date, we have identified three infringing systems. Claim charts are available upon execution of a confidentiality agreement. Because the market is growing, we anticipate more and more infringing systems to come on to the market regularly.

Translation: here's a chance to shake down lots of players, because it's a broad "cloud storage patent" that is going to cover all sorts of stuff that companies are going to be doing because it's basically describing how cloud services work. Of course, in a rational world, this would be evidence that the patent in question should never have been granted, as it was clearly a next obvious step in the advancement of the technology, rather than any sort of breakthrough that needed protection.

The patented technology is applicable to storing video, audio (e.g., music) and other digital objects in cloud storage. Thus, the patented technology is applicable to remote digital video recording (DVR) services and other such services wherein the user selects content (e.g., television show, radio shows, etc.) to record (at some point in the future) and the system records the selected content on a server which is accessible by the user, for example, via the Internet or a wireless network.

As indicated in the Wall Street Journal, "the global market for 'the cloud' is expected to soar in the next several years, but cloud computing isn't just for big businesses; consumers use it regularly too, for storage and productivity." As the need for audio and video storage increases, new players, such as Comcast, are now entering the market. Consequently, the offered portfolio provides a fantastic opportunity for significant revenue and/or increased market share to any buyer.

In other words, this patent is hella broad, and is going to cover something quite obvious (DVRs, but "on the internet"). That courts have started (finally) becoming suspect of patents that take something already known (a DVR) and just basically add "on the internet" to it, isn't mentioned in the sales pitch, of course. Later, the pitch document again highlights how ridiculously broad the patent is, by noting that it counts towards content accessed from any device, and this it's "critical to the future of audio and video distribution." This is, simply, nuts. What's described in the patent is no breakthrough or revolutionary step forward. It's just the basics for how a reasonable engineer would build such a service. Put 100 engineers in the room and ask them to build a remote DVR, and I bet most of them would "accidentally" infringe on this patent. That's not about copying the idea or "stealing" the idea. It's about a broad idea that is obvious, getting locked up in a patent so someone can cash in for not doing anything.

Oh yeah, did we mention the current patent holder isn't doing anything with it? Right:

The patents are not licensed and have never been litigated. The patents are not encumbered and the seller does not need a license back.

No license back means for all the talk of how critical and important this is, the "inventors" (and I use that word loosely) did absolutely nothing with it. And if it's never been licensed or litigated, that means there's no evidence that whatever's in the patent has ever even been seen by anyone doing work in this field, let alone used to further the market. Thus, the idea that these patents are "critical" to the market is flat out laughable.

The patent itself is 7,921,221, on a "Method and apparatus for obtaining digital objects in a communication network." Yeah, seriously. Surely something like that must have been filed back in the dark ages, right? Nope. 2008. Because back then, no one knew how to obtain digital objects in a communications network. This isn't innovation, this is a lottery ticket to shake down the companies who actually do innovate.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Obstacles Are There To Storing Your Own Media In The Cloud: Step2 Startups Feedback Wanted

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:45:00 PDT

The latest in our Step2 Startups series is from QVIVO, a maker of home based media center/storage systems, who have added a cloud syncing system, and are wondering what the biggest obstacles are for people hosting their own media in the cloud. Is it a legal issue? Cultural? Technological? What would it take for you to be willing to make use of such a service?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

PATRIOT Act Continues To Harm US Businesses: BAE Refuses To Use MS Cloud Over PATRIOT Act Fears

Mike Masnick — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:26:48 PST

Following on recent reports that, under the PATRIOT Act, European companies that use Microsoft's cloud offerings in Europe might find their data subject to US government snooping and seizure, it appears that some rather large European companies are rethinking their cloud deployment plans. UK defense contracting giant BAE had apparently planned to start using Microsoft Office 365, until it was pointed out that this could make their documents subject to US snooping under the PATRIOT Act... and the company changed its plans. At what point do PATRIOT Act supporters realize that such broad provisions don't help the US at all, but only lead to situations like this, where business is driven elsewhere.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Study Shows How SOPA/PIPA Will Harm Investment In Key Innovations

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:08:00 PST

Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner (who has done fantastic research in the past on problems with the patent system) appears to have turned his attention to copyright law as well. A new report he has put out shows how the Second Circuit appeals court ruling that said Cablevision's cloud-based DVR was legal provided some amount of certainty in questions concerning copyright law in the cloud, and that resulted in increased venture capital investment in related cloud offerings (pdf) to the tune of between $728 million to $1.3 billion.

Obviously, at first pass, there are questions about the level of causality here, as opposed to just correlation (or just the general development of the cloud market). However, Lerner tries to control for a variety of external variables in attempting to figure out the direct impact here. And, obviously, you can never tease out all the different factors, but he makes a pretty compelling case that this particular ruling had a massive impact in venture capitalists' willingness to invest in the space -- and further cites additional research that shows a pretty clear direct causal relationship between VC investment and innovation and job creation. He further controls for things like broadband penetration, which could also impact these numbers.

The main key here was comparing investments in the cloud space in the US vs. Europe over the same period, because the US had the legal clarification, while Europe did not. Basically, in the US, after the Cablevision ruling, investments in cloud computing rose by 41%. In Europe, it rose 27%. Obviously, much of that increase is just due to the rise of the space, but the greater increase in the US suggests that the ruling really had an impact -- and that impact is pretty massive in terms of investment, and from that innovation and jobs. From there, Lerner does a lot of additional statistical analysis to separate out the direct impact of the Cablevision ruling compared to many other possible factors, and shows a pretty significant impact from the ruling. There's a lot more in the report, with details of the statistical analysis used for those who want to dig into the specifics, which looks pretty rigorous from my standpoint (though, I haven't done hard core stats in about a decade, but at one point in the past I taught stats in college). Either way, Lerner clearly approached the question from a variety of different angles, and they all seemed to suggest similar results, which is pretty compelling.

The key conclusion:

Our findings suggest that decisions around copyright scope can have significant impacts on investment and innovation. We have tested a number of models and consistently find that the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision led to additional incremental investment in U.S. cloud computing companies compared to the EU experience. As shown in the figure in Appendix B, estimates of increased VC investment in U.S. cloud computing from our seven models range from $728 million to approximately $1.3 billion, with an average of $936 million. When paired with the findings of the enhanced effects of VC investment relative to corporate investment, this may be the equivalent of $2 to $5 billion in traditional R&D investment.

This is quite important to think about in the context of SOPA/PIPA, where Hollywood and the US Chamber of Commerce are seeking to massively change the legal framework around cloud computing (effectively killing the Cablevision ruling and much, much more). The clear fear here should be that doing so will massively chill innovation, job creation and investment. This is why top venture capitalists are so worried about SOPA/PIPA. It'll seriously chill investment in a key area of the innovation ecosystem. Even worse, this is the part of the industry that's actually helping the entertainment industry move into the 21st century.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apps Letting You Stream Your Own Music From The Cloud Being Pressured Over 'Licensing'

Mike Masnick — Fri, 4 Nov 2011 04:00:29 PDT

When Google, Amazon and Apple all entered the "cloud music" space at about the same time, we pointed out that we seemed to be missing the real point of the cloud. That was, that all of the services required the storage provider's own client app to play the music stored there. As I noted, that's not what the promise of the cloud is. It should be about being able to store data in the cloud and then let any relevant app access that data through an API. It's positively ridiculous that the (all legal, by the way) music I have is stored in multiple places in the cloud. For years, I've backed it up with a person Amazon S3 account. But when Amazon launched its cloud music player, I couldn't just point the player to my S3 storage, but had to re-upload. Then when Google launched its Music Beta... re-upload. The best player in the space may be MP3Tunes, who is the most open and willing to let third parties in. But most of the big guys are limited.

So it's interesting to see that some folks are writing third party apps to access music in Google and Amazon's cloud... but apparently Amazon flipped out about the aMusic iPhone app and, as sent in by Jeffrey Nonken, politely asked the developer to kill the app, noting that since Apple doesn't have licenses that "allow" third party access, he has to wait until they have such licenses.

This is, to put it mildly, stupid. If I have legally obtained files, and I put them in a locker where only I have the legal access to them, why shouldn't I be able to point any app I want at it. This would be like saying that if I had a cllient side app playing music on my hard drive, I couldn't then get another app to play the same files... unless the hard drive maker got the right "licenses" from the record labels. How does that make any sense at all?

This is definitely a big problem with "cloud" services these days however, where folks like the record labels think they retain ownership and control of files that people think they legally "own," limiting how they can listen to them. That seems to give the labels much greater rights than are reasonable granted under copyright law... just because the files are stored at a data center, rather than on a local hard drive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services

Mike Masnick — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:33:00 PDT

One of the key concerns we've had about the rise of broadband caps is that they don't take into account the fact that more and more data and services are moving online. When companies put in place data caps -- such as Comcasts' 250 gigs or AT&T's 150 gigs, they always highlight how this really only impacts a tiny percentage of users. But, the truth is that as more things go online, and more data is moved to "the cloud," it's really not that hard to bump up against these caps... and apparently the penalties are harsh. Andre Vrignaud lost his Comcast account for going over 250 GB two months in a row, mainly from using various legal online services, including Pandora and Netflix. He had also switched to a new online backup service, and the initial upload used up a bunch of bandwidth. He did admit to downloading a few things via BitTorrent (a UK show not available in the US), but it seems clear that most of his internet usage was perfectly legitimate. And now he has no account, and Comcast won't let him back on for a year. They won't even let him buy a more expensive package.

Yes, his data usage may have been extreme, but these kinds of services are becoming more common, and as we start to see even more new services, there are going to be a lot more stories of people bumping up against these caps. The truth is that the ISPs could upgrade their networks to handle this traffic. And it's not even that hard to do so. But with these caps they don't have to move as fast, and can slow down improving things -- which is what Wall Street likes. It just sucks if you're someone who, you know, actually wants to use the internet for what it enables.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Details Emerge On Best Buy's 'Music Cloud' Service

Tim Cushing — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:35:00 PDT

Always striving to prove that they're on the cutting edge of the technological curve (how's that for "turning a phrase?"), Best Buy has announced that, why not? it will be offering some sort of music cloud service as well, thrillingly named "Music Cloud." While information is still trickling out as to licensing issues and whether or not the public was really crying out for a Best Buy-owned cloud service, a few details have emerged.

The following is a mockup (emphasis on the first syllable) of Best Buy's promotional ad copy for its upcoming Music Cloud:

Can't wait to do this "cloud thing" that everyone's already doing? Come to Best Buy!

Simply drop off your computer and one of our Geek Squad™©® members will get you "clouded" in no time.*
*"No time" = 4-6 hours (4 hour min. @ $79/hr.) to 4-6 weeks (depending on computer complexity/misplacement.)

Can't make it in to one of our convenient locations? Our Geek Squad™©® members will be more than happy to jam themselves into the nearest VW bug and get this "cloud thing" going from the comfort of your own home!

With either option, you know you're getting Best Buy's famous technical expertise!

In-Store Cloud Service

For just $79/hr. (4 hr. min. charge), your personal Geek will:

Stripmine your hard drive of all porn, personal photos, personal data, functioning AV programs and music files. Music will be uploaded to the cloud and accidentally deleted from your hard drive. All other items will remain in place but be conveniently duplicated to your Geek's personal "cloud" and uploaded later to Facebook and image boards.

Install trial version of various products, including the AV program you didn't want and multiple trial versions of software you'd never purchase. This "Convenience Package" can be uninstalled for $49.

Provide you with a link to your personal cloud ($29), an email verification form ($7.99)* and a complimentary USB drive (2 GB or lower) from the Returns pile to be used as a personal "take anywhere" pocket cloud or whatever.
* Optional email installation (Gmail, Hotmail or Earthlink - $39)

Sneeze or cough on your computer no less than four(4) times.

Possibly corrupt your hard drive. (Offer not valid in AL, HI or PR.)

Home Cloud Service

For just $149/hr. (4 hr. min. charge), you'll get all of the above, plus your personal in-home Geek will:

Disconnect your internet service ($19/per occurence).

Comment on the "loveliness" of your home. ($39-$99, depending on sincerity.)

Create some sort of error requiring a trip to the nearest Best Buy for repair. ($"Add to Cart" to see surprisingly high price.)

Hand-copy your login info to the back of his business card ("for quick reference").

Note: additional supplies needed to ensure proper home service will be added to the minimum bill. These include:

5' Ethernet cable - $39

Blank DVD to create recovery disk - $4.99

Complimentary Geek Squad pen ($0 if left behind by technician. Otherwise, $4.99.)

Screen defragmenter - $12.99/bottle (Active ingredients: isopropyl alcohol, Geek palm sweat)

5' Power cord - $19

Comment card - $2

With your music possibly loaded into our Cloud, you're now free to go anywhere* and listen to your music at any time!** And all for less than you'd spend on a top-end Airbook! Welcome (belatedly) to the future!

* "Anywhere" is defined as any of the contiguous 48 states (excl. TX, MT and VT). Your "Cloud" can be accessed from any Best Buy Certified Computer for up to 6 hours a day or 3 hours continuous play. Other restrictions may apply. See EULA for details.
** "Anytime" is defined as normal store hours. "Cloud" hours will NOT extend during the holiday season. Expect regular interruptions for scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, "someone forgot to turn it on when they clocked in" and inadvertent login info dissemination.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oops: Dropbox Left All User Accounts Wide Open For Four Hours This Weekend

Mike Masnick — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:39:48 PDT

Dropbox's security has been under increased scrutiny lately, after some security researchers claimed that some of its security practices were questionable. So, it was probably the worst time possible for the company to have a "programmer's error," leaving all Dropbox accounts completely wide open to anyone for four hours on Sunday. Apparently, during that period of time, you could log into anyone's account with any password. Just type in a random string of gibberish and you're in. Not surprisingly, the company is apologizing and investigating how this happened. At the very least, it seems like a good reason to explore alternatives if you're doing remote storage.

Of course, this also raises interesting points concerning the big question of "cloud" security. Many people have suggested that relying on some third party -- such as Dropbox -- is inherently insecure. However, that assumes that an individual who goes a different route would be able to create a more secure system on their own. I'm sure that's true for some people, but it might not be the case for the everyday user. In the long run, you would hope that these remote service providers can implement stronger security, so that individuals don't have to. But, in the short run, I wouldn't be surprised to see more such stories of less-than-optimal security being exposed at these kinds of service providers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We're Missing The Point Of The Cloud: It's Not Supposed To Be Locked To A Single Service

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:51:31 PDT

In the last few months now, we've had the launch of Amazon's, Google's and now Apple's "music locker" services. There are some key differences there, but all of them involve storing music collections in the so-called "cloud." But here's the thing: none of these actually match the promise of what "the cloud" is supposed to be. Rather, each involves online storage and lock-in to a particular vendor. I made this point back when Amazon launched its offering. I already back up all my (yes, legal and authorized) music via a mountable "cloud" drive using S3. Then I can access all of that music using any music player I want. With Amazon's and Google's offerings, the streaming only can occur via its own streaming service. In fact, the ultimate in ridiculousness was that I had to re-upload some songs to Amazon's music locker, rather than just point it at my S3 drive -- which is run by Amazon as well! At least with Apple's the focus seems to be syncing the music on various devices, but with Apple's control over the platform, it seems likely that for most people this still will effectively restrict usage to Apple applications.

I absolutely understand why this is happening, and am sure that the labels would positively freak out if someone had offered a cloud service that you could point any application to. But, really, when we're talking about "the cloud" and it involves this kind of lockup, it's important to remember that we're really not seeing some of the key features that the whole concept of "the cloud" is supposed to enable. Yes, we're seeing the remote storage and the access from anywhere type features, but not the ability to access information and data with different services. And, of course, once you could access such info with different services, you could see some real innovation start to occur around that information, including unique services for sharing and combining playlists, and making music a lot more social. At some point that will come, but, until then, these offerings are nice, yet hardly demonstrate what the technology really could do if it were unshackled.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple's Music Match: Innovation By (Record Label) Committee

Mike Masnick — Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:33:57 PDT

Well, pretty much everything in the announcement of Apple's iCloud "Music Match" music service was leaked or predicted prior to the announcement today, so there's not much that seems particularly surprising. Basically, for $25/year, you can have Apple scan your music and anything that it already has in the iTunes store will automatically be available to you on all your other (Apple?) devices. A lot of people noted that this appears to focus more on syncing rather than streaming. That is, almost all of the talk was how all of the music would be available to download to whatever device you had synced to the system, rather than any sort of streaming player. Still, none of this seems particularly revolutionary. The music match functionality seems identical to what Apple bought from LaLa nearly two years ago. The syncing features are nice, but plenty of other services have allowed file sync between devices. It sounds nice, but nothing all that amazing.

The real story may be in the terms of the deal. While the labels allegedly turned down $100 million from Google to offer the same functionality, they took $150 million from Apple for this deal -- as an advance on approximately 58% of all of those $25 fees. Depending on how much music you actually have, the $25/year might be a decent deal compared to other cloud storage offerings, but Apple isn't going to make much money on it. Between the storage/bandwidth fees and having to fork over so much to the labels, this has to be a loss leader type of deal, with hopes that it sells more hardware (probably not a bad bet for Apple). Of course, that explains why the Google deal may have been "unsustainable" in the eyes of Google. It doesn't really have the hardware revenue to fall back on.

Still, it makes you wonder what, exactly, Apple is paying the labels for here. What's really being licensed? Effectively it's the ability to match the songs and put copies in a locker, which basically means that the labels are getting paid -- yet again -- for songs that they already sold to people.

That said, the other interesting thing about this is that while the labels were pushing everyone else to figure out ways to block tracks that didn't have a clear authorized lineage from being included in such deals, that does not appear to be the case here. As a friend noted to me after this announcement, if someone creates a dropbox or other mountable hard drive with a ton of music, and people mount it and then run the matching software on it, they could technically "launder" unauthorized tracks through Apple and have them in their "cloud" pretty easily. Which means... expect stories in the very near future from RIAA-types about this horrible "new trend" of massive mountable drives that people use to then dump thousands of songs into their Apple music storage. How long until someone tries to pass a law about that sort of thing?

The other interesting bit? While the big four music labels apparently got that $150 million as an advance, all of the indie labels? They get nothing. Not only are they not getting any advances, but they get a smaller percentage than the major labels. Apple pretty much realized that if it had the big four labels, the indies would more or less be forced to come on board at whatever terms Apple wanted.

On the whole, lots of folks seem excited about this, and as with so many Apple offerings, I'm sure lots of people will use it and it will do quite well. But I just don't see what's so compelling about repaying to access my own (legal and authorized content) via other devices, when I've already set up plenty of ways to do just that already.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BMI Says A Single Person Listening To His Own Music Via The Cloud Is A Public Performance

Tim Cushing — Tue, 10 May 2011 09:10:36 PDT

There's no time like late on a Friday to send out disturbing missives. Companies who need to let staff go often find it easier to let the week "play out" before handing out the pink slips. Congressmen who need to shove through some questionable legislation often wait until the papers have gone to bed, or at least a majority of the voting citizens.

Martin Berenson, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for BMI has decided there's no time like Friday evening to kick out an editorial about streaming music via the "cloud."

Berenson chooses to couch his arguments in the relative safety of Capitol Records (and others) ongoing legal battle with MP3tunes.com, a "subscription Internet music 'locker' service," before launching a grazing attack on "cloud-computing" in general. While the legality of MP3tunes' actions is still under question, Berenson expresses his concern that its legal arguments could "create loopholes in the copyright law relating to the public performance right."

There's a lot to unpack in this editorial, but what it all boils down to is this: BMI wants a chunk of this "cloud" money.

MP3tunes logically points out (in its arguments against Capitol Records) that a user making a copy on a "dedicated, private, remote storage device" and playing it back to himself is a private performance and, therefore, needs no licensing. Google, the EFF and Public Knowledge have all entered amici briefs (or "broad attacks on the performing right," according to Berenson) stating that, "if a user initiates a stream, it should not be considered a public performance" by the service.

This seems to be a logical thought: one person listening to his or her own music is not a public performance. But, won't someone please think of the licensing? No worries, Berenson has that covered:

As previously noted, BMI argues that the public performing right has long applied to on-demand, interactive streaming. Additionally, it makes no difference if the audience for the transmission is only one person, who may receive the program at a unique time, and that MP3tunes’ attempt to make one to one transmissions into private performances is contrary to established law. We stress that it was only the existence of the unique copy made by each subscriber that was the critical factor that saved Cablevision from being an infringer. MP3tunes cannot evade that essential aspect of the court’s ruling on the grounds it would be more efficient to infringe with one copy in storage for all recipients.

Well, there you have it:

The right to collect licensing fees has "long applied" to streaming services, and since it's been there before, it logically follows that it should always be that way, no matter the differences of each situation.

It makes no difference if only one person is listening -- it's still a public performance. BMI and their fellow performance rights groups have always been willing to grant individuals the rights of a crowd.

Storage efficiency = infringement.

But Berenson's just warming up, and this is where it gets really interesting (and by "interesting," I mean "ludicrous"):

The strength of the public performing right would be threatened by a ruling that broadens the Cablevision court’s private-performance ruling to otherwise-unlicensed services. Cloud computing will no doubt grow tremendously in the future and if MP3tunes’ argument is adopted by the court, unlicensed entertainment services in “the cloud” will steal audiences from existing licensed streaming services (as well as from more traditional media entities), and copyright owners will be harmed by such a ruling.

From that point, Berenson takes a quick run at Amazon's Cloud Drive, mSpot and underdog neo-Luddites, Zediva (in particular, noting that Zediva's DVD player farm "competes unfairly with licensed services" -- which is a totally understandable statement, because the film industry has always been nothing but fair when dealing with competitors and customers).

While Berenson does not specifically attack or threaten Amazon's new service/player, one can only gather from this editorial that the rent-seekers (BMI, ASCAP, etc.) are beginning to formulate their plan to get a piece of this hot, new action, if not already forming an orderly line outside the virtual door. The sentence, "The issues are not confined to MP3tunes," seems to indicate that he considers these services to be next in line for the MP3tunes treatment.

After all, Berenson equates listening to unlicensed music streams to "theft" and there's really nothing more sincere than an "editorial" from a self-interest group. In closing, he offers this baffling line:

These efforts to diminish or circumvent the performing right point up the need for heightened vigilance on our part.

Godspeed, BMI. The more you can do to separate people from their music, the richer you should become. And with an entire nation of individual listeners billable as one (1) crowd, the sky's the limit. (Hence, the "pointing up," I assume.) Just watch out for those pesky "clouds".

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Amazon Insists No Licenses Needed For Cloud Player, Google Thinking Of Skipping Licenses As Well

Mike Masnick — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:51:31 PDT

When Amazon launched its cloud music streaming service a few weeks ago, the big question concerned whether or not it needed licenses to do so. It certainly did not have them. And there's a strong argument that it doesn't need them. After all, it was just letting people take music files they already had, and allowing them to store and stream them from the internet. Why should it require an extra license to let people listen to music they already have? However, we did worry that Amazon would simply cave in, rather than fight, as it wanted to remain on good terms with the record labels.

Perhaps that's not the case, however. Amazon has sent a letter to the record labels, once again reiterating that it does not believe it needs licenses. On top of that, it points out that, so far, the Cloud Drive appears to be driving more sales of MP3s.

Cloud Drive is a general online storage service for all digital files, not unlike Google Docs, Microsoft SkyDrive and any number of other internet file back-up services. It’s your external hard-drive in the cloud. It requires a license from content owners no more than those other internet file back-up services do and no more than makers of external hard drives for PCs do.

Cloud Player is a media management and play-back application not unlike Windows Media Player and any number of other media management applications that let customers manage and play their music. It requires a license from content owners no more than those applications do.

It really is that simple.

Nice to see Amazon taking a stand here. Hopefully it keeps up.

At the same time, it appears that Google may be inspired by Amazon's decision here to stand up against the idea that licenses are needed for digital lockers. While it had been trying to negotiate licenses, rumors are coming out that it's fed up with ridiculous demands from the labels and ready to follow Amazon's lead in just offering up the service without any licenses.

Not surprisingly, the report names Warner Music as being the party that has been the worst to deal with in these negotiations. That fits with what we've heard from other negotiations, where Warner Music puts absolutely ridiculous deal terms on the table and refuses to budge. It would be nice if Google follows Amazon's lead and calls the labels' bluff on the idea that licenses are needed for this kind of service.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Amazon Launches Digital Music Locker, Even As Legality Is Still In Question

Mike Masnick — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:13:47 PDT

Well, this could get interesting. While there are already a few digital music lockers on the market -- including services like MP3Tunes and MeCanto -- there's been plenty of talk over the past few months about the "big players" entering the market. Most of the focus has been on both Apple (which bought and shut down the music locker service Lala) and Google, but Amazon beat both companies to the starting line and launched its service a few hours ago.

The question that's most interesting to me is whether or not it's paying for licenses, and at this point, it's unclear. We've seen, for example, that the record labels are not happy about these services, with EMI in a legal fight with MP3Tunes. On top of that record labels are demanding additional fees and licenses, even though these lockers only allow people to store and stream music they already have. Whether or not Amazon paid any licenses is unclear. The News.com article linked above says "as of last week the online retailer giant had not obtained all the necessary licenses, but that Amazon might announce the service before all the negotiations were complete."

But here's my question: what necessary licenses? Why should anyone else have to pay a license to let me store and stream my own music? Update: Hypebot has more, saying that Amazon doesn't believe it needs licenses, and some of the labels (but not all) are upset. Specifically, Warner Music is pissed and is contemplating legal action, but other labels aren't quite as upset.

As for Amazon's actual service, I have no idea if it's compelling, but I will say it's rather silly and pointless that they're making me reupload music. I already have an Amazon S3 account which (among other things) I use to backup all of my (yes, legal and authorized) music. What would be great is if I could just point this new Amazon Cloud Player at my existing music that is already stored on Amazon's servers, and then stream it from there. But that does not appear to be an option. Instead, I would need to reload all of it (and since I have a lot more than 5 gigs of music, I'd have to pay multiple times for it. And, with anyone else launching a similar service, I'd probably have to upload it again and again.

Let's be honest here: that's not really a cloud service. A true cloud service would let me store my music wherever I wanted, and then point whatever streaming player I wanted at it... But, of course, I'm sure the record labels would want another bunch of licenses paid up in full before anything like that is ever allowed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Trash Talking Spotify As It Prepares Its Competitor

Mike Masnick — Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:40:00 PDT

There's yet another rumor going around that Apple is getting ready to launch a subscription music service. That's been rumored for ages, and it would be surprising if the company didn't do it. In fact, many were surprised that after Apple shut down music locker Lala that it didn't immediately launch a cloud based subscription offering. But, perhaps more interesting, is the fact that Apple has also been spending time trash-talking Spotify to music industry execs. We had mentioned, when Apple shut down Lala, that it would be a good time for Spotify to figure out how to launch in the US. The company has been trying for quite some time now, and the record label demands are basically impossible to meet. And it sounds like Apple is encouraging that. As Greg Sandoval reports:

In meetings in Los Angeles recently, Apple executives told their music industry counterparts that they had serious doubts about whether Spotify's business model could ever generate significant revenues or profits, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions.

But Apple executives worried about the effects of a free music service might have on the rest of the market. They noted that it's tough to sell something that someone else is giving away, the sources said. One industry insider said it is only logical that if Spotify were allowed to launch a free-music service here, at a time when Nielsen recently reported that the growth of digital sales has flattened out, it could eat into the businesses of proven revenue-producers like Apple and Amazon.

Ah, the amazing ridiculousness of confused short-term thinking. While I also have questions about Spotify's ability to generate significant revenues long-term, the recording industry is making a huge mistake if it buys into the idea that Spotify is likely to cannibalize digital sales. If you look at reports in places where Spotify is widely available, such as Sweden and the UK, the reports suggest that what Spotify actually cannibalizes is unauthorized downloading. Yes, there are a bunch of reports that suggest Spotify gets people away from The Pirate Bay and into a system that at least gets the labels some money.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Cloud Security Webinar Now Available; Just As New Report Warns Of Cloud Security

Mike Masnick — Mon, 24 May 2010 14:47:00 PDT

You may recall that, a couple weeks ago, we had a webinar on cloud security, with Jake Kaldenbaugh of CloudStrategies and Sam Quigley of Emerose, that was well attended and well reviewed (thank you!). The feedback on it was tremendous. If you happened to miss it, we've now made it available to watch, and also have put up the actual PowerPoint document for download as well. And... bonus time. The PDF file contains a series of extra slides, detailing some of the state of the cloud security market today -- as well as some details about Amazon's cloud security initiatives. Even if you caught the original presentation, there are probably some useful additional nuggets in there as well.

And, in the meantime, don't forget to sign up for our next Webinar, coming up this Wednesday at 9am PT/noon ET on What IT Needs To Know About The Law, with Dave Navetta and Larry Downes. The signups on this one have been through the roof and we've been working hard putting it together. The conversation should be very, very interesting, so definitely come ready with questions as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Storing Your Documents In 'The Cloud' Mean The Gov't Has Easier Access To It?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 5 May 2010 17:34:24 PDT

One of the more annoying things concerning the ever changing technology world is the trouble that the law has in keeping up. We're seeing that a lot lately. For example, a few months ago, we talked about 4th Amendment issues when it comes to cloud data. There are a few different camps on this, with a few different thoughts -- and so far, no one's exactly sure who's right. We predicted the issue was going to come up more frequently... and we're already seeing that. A few months after that post, we had a court ruling that (on a questionable basis) found no 4th Amendment privacy protections for emails once delivered, using similar logic to the debate over the cloud. And such cases are becoming more common.

The Citizen Media Law Project has a good discussion about the FBI getting access to documents stored in Google Docs as part of a spam investigation. In that case, the FBI did go through the process of getting a full search warrant (which should have satisfied some of the 4th Amendment concerns), but it's the first case on record of the FBI getting access to Google Docs.

Part of the problem here is that this sort of stuff is covered under a law that's nearly a quarter of a century old, and is not even remotely designed for a modern technology world:

The current federal statute on the issue, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., basically extended the rules regarding government access to older technologies like the telephone (e.g., wiretapping) to electronic communications. The USA Patriot Act, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, modified these old rules a bit. But the basic, underlying statute was passed in 1986, before the advent and widespread use of email, text messaging, social networking websites, and the myriad other means of modern communications.

As others have explained at length, ECPA creates an exceedingly dense and confusing statutory framework, and relies on a series of archaic distinctions, such as whether a communication is "stored" or "in transit." This complexity creates uncertainty about what showing law enforcement has to make in order to access user materials stored in the cloud. Is a search warrant, a subpoena, or an informal request required? Under what circumstances can service providers voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement?

What's interesting is how little attention these issues seem to be getting -- even though they can have a pretty large impact. And, even though this may seem like legal details, it applies well outside the legal field as well. While it won't be the key focus, we're even going to include a short section on these kinds of legal issues in the cloud in our upcoming webinar on cloud security (register here). While this might not seem directly like a security issue, if you're in charge of keeping data secure, it's pretty important to know what it means when the feds knock on your door... or the door of the third party "cloud" provider to whom you outsourced your company's data.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Bought Lala To Shut It Down?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:16:19 PDT

I've been a pretty harsh critic of Lala over the years. The company was long on hype and short on substance with its ever changing business model. First it was a CD swapping service. Then it was a free streaming music service. Then it was an iTunes-in-the-cloud. Still, the final product was decent, and with a bit of work could take on Spotify in the market. When Apple swooped in and bought Lala late last year, many people got excited over the possibility of Apple creating its own streaming music service that really could be seamless.

Instead, it looks like Apple bought Lala to shut it down. Just five months or so after purchasing it, Apple has announced that Lala will be closing at the end of May, pissing off lots of users. Now, it's entirely possible (or even likely) that Apple is timing the shutdown with a launch of a totally new streaming iTunes-in-the-cloud type service, but it does seem weird to buy a company and shut it down so quickly, and raises questions of whether or not the purchase was really about building out Apple's offerings, or about shutting down a nascent competitor just before Apple launched its own version. Also, if the plan is to launch its own version, why "shut down" Lala? Why not just transfer them over to the new service?

In the meantime, Spotify still hasn't launched in the US, but you would think that now might be a good time to step in and sign up disgruntled Lala listeners -- before Apple really enters the market...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As Expected, Labels Now Want To Use Privacy-Reducing Watermarks As 'Cloud DRM'

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:44:00 PDT

For quite some time now, the record labels have believed that if they couldn't put old school copy protection on music files, the "next best thing" would be watermarks. This idea started showing up more than five years ago and when iTunes finally went DRM free, we were among those who pointed out that the files still contained identifying watermarks, in that the files themselves included info on who purchased the files. Two years ago we pointed out how these were a serious problem from a privacy perspective and it was best not to go down that road.

Surprise, surprise. The industry didn't listen.

As a bunch of you are submitting, with streaming/cloud music suddenly becoming popular, apparently the record labels are demanding that companies use such watermarks as a new type of privacy-invading DRM:

The labels, say our source, are demanding that a user can only stream music that is watermarked to their username. Change the username, or try to stream music that you've ripped from a CD, and those songs won't play.

While a bunch of people submitting this seem to think the watermarking is new, it's not. That part of the story has been known for years. But what is new (if not surprising) is that the labels are trying to lock up streaming services by using the watermarks as a weak form of DRM. Of course, like any form of DRM it won't work. Instead, it will annoy legitimate users who are stopped from listening to music they legally obtained the rights to. And, on top of that, it will put their privacy at risk. And for what purpose?

New decade. Same story.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:56:21 PST

A year and a half ago, we had an interesting discussion here about whether or not the Fourth Amendment and your right to privacy extended to information you stored online via any sort of "cloud" service. The arguments basically fell into two camps, with some citing the "third party doctrine," which basically says that once you gave up info to a third party, you no longer have any right to expect it to be kept private. This argument came from a lawsuit (Smith v. Maryland) that basically said phone numbers you dialed were not "secret" because you were supplying them to the phone company. Of course, the other side of that argument is that it's ridiculous to extend this concept to online storage, noting that the Supreme Court had recognized in the Katz case (about wiretapping public pay phones) that the Fourth Amendment applies to "people, not places."

It looks like this debate is kicking off again, with a discussion on News.com over whether or not the Fourth Amendment covers information stored in "the cloud." It tackles some of the same ground that we covered a while back, but points to a recent law review paper on this topic (pdf) by David A. Couillard.

The paper does a good job separating out the thinking here, and explaining why the Fourth Amendment absolutely should apply to information you store online. As it notes, while the Smith case said that phone numbers dialed might not be private, that did not extend to the contents of the phone call itself. And that's key. The reason that the phone company gets the phone numbers dialed is because that information is key to it delivering its service of connecting the phone call. So you can make a reasonable argument that while such information (the information needed to initiate a service) might not be subject to privacy protection, everything else communicated or stored via that service still deserves those protections.

The issue is that right now we really don't know how the courts feel about this -- and you can bet this is going to become an issue that shows up in the court system before too long. Hopefully, the courts will recognize that any "third party doctrine" when it comes to the Fourth Amendment is limited to a very narrow subset of information provided for a particular purpose, rather than all information stored on third party servers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Crowdsourced, Cloud-Based Anti-Virus? Lots Of Buzzwords, But How Does It Work?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:22:00 PDT

We've seen plenty of crowdsourced anti-spam apps, but Jesse points us to a company called Immunet that claims to be launching a free "cloud-based, collaborative anti-virus" solution. The idea is that people install it, and as soon as anyone detects a virus problem, that info is shared with all of the other users, thereby (in theory) working much faster than today's brand-name anti-virus products. However, I have to admit I can't figure out how this works. For anti-spam stuff it makes sense -- since anyone can recognize spam. But how can it work for anti-virus? Who's determining what the actual virus is? How is it protected against false positives? None of that's clear. I went through the company's website, and it seems to just skip right over the question of actually detecting the virus. It makes fun of the established anti-virus providers for taking too long in examining suspected viruses in their lab, but never explains how the detection occurs otherwise. In fact, about the only thing I can figure out from the company's own language is that it's going to simply use the virus definitions found in those other products installed on people's computers. If that's true, then it won't actually be any better or faster than those companies it was making fun of earlier. The whole thing sounds full of buzzwords and hype, but appears to have little substance.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story