Why Are The Record Labels Demanding Money To Let People Stream Legally Purchased Music?

from the isn't-that-music-that-I'm-free-to-listen-to? dept

Lately, I've been playing around with various music locker services, just to get a better understanding of how they work and to be able to access my (legally purchased) music collection on various machines and devices. So far, they're all a bit limited, but it shouldn't be long until they get better. However, the industry has always hated music locker services, and insisted that they somehow violate their copyright, even when the lockers simply allow individuals to place shift their own legal music. There's an ongoing lawsuit over Michael Robertson's MP3Tunes for which a decision is expected shortly. At the same time, Apple has been trying to quietly enter the market without disturbing the record labels.

Why? Because the labels have this bizarre theory of copyright that says that even if you have a music locker with entirely legal and authorized music, you still need to pay license fees to stream the music from the locker. It's difficult to understand how that makes any sense at all, either from a common sense or legal standpoint, and the labels may have a difficult time getting such a concept to stand up in court. But I'm reminded of the issue again as reports are leaking of Google's proposed music service, which would include a music locker component. Apparently a big stumbling block, however, is that Google wants to charge $25/year for it, and do a 50/50 split with the labels.

The labels, of course, are quite upset at such a proposal, claiming it's ridiculous, both in terms of the total amount and the revenue share. But I'm wondering what their complaint is here. If the music is legally purchased (or is given away in an authorized manner for free), then how can they possibly demand such exorbitant rates for streaming that very same music? This is going to backfire on the labels in a big way. Their constant refrain of "pay us every time you use," is looking more and more desperate.

Filed Under: lockers, music, streaming
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Cynyr (profile), 17 Sep 2010 @ 7:44am

    Re:

    Are you extrapolating from the ability to space-shift music from a CD onto, e.g., an iPod? That's an argument, but then again if I rip a CD to my iPod I am not temporarily giving that copy to a third-party entity who is going to commercially benefit, directly or indirectly, from my doing so, which knots up the fair use argument somewhat.

    If the third party can get to it (encrypted file/vault/partition/etc) how does the third party have a copy? would it be ok if hosted the files on a co-located server? how about just a VM on a box that had other VMs? how about just a vserver?

    Thats where us technical folk get lost, all a locker is, is a co-located storage space, with some auth/encryption applied to it. now the vaults are cheaper because you can't run whatever you like, or anything CPU intensive on it. As they say "you get what you pay for"(which is a lie btw but meh).

    I view a vault no differently that a home server that happens to be located somewhere else for better connectivity.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.