Will Amazon Cave In And Get Licenses For Its Streaming Player?

from the probably dept

When Amazon recently launched its streaming cloud music player, which let people upload their own tracks and then stream them back, one of the big questions was how would the record labels react. That's because Amazon didn't secure licenses for this, and it's somewhat in dispute whether or not it needs to. Of course, many of us think the law is pretty clear that no such licenses are needed at all. The music is already in the possession of the person who is streaming it. There is no additional fee that needs to be paid to listen to music you already have. Adding in a new license is just something the industry is making up because it wants more money. So, now the real question is whether or not the labels will sue... or will Amazon just cave in and pay for some made up licenses it doesn't need.

It's beginning to sound like the latter option is the most likely. Amazon doesn't want to piss off the labels who it already works with for music sales (both downloads and CDs), and so it may find that it's best just to pay up to avoid a lawsuit and other relationship problems. It might also pay up to enable other kinds of features (such as limited music sharing for people who both have the same songs in their collections).

While I can certainly understand the business reasons for avoiding a legal fight, it really would be too bad. It would be nice to see someone with the bank account to take on a serious fight really take this issue through the courts and have it shown that the major labels are simply making up a license right that doesn't exist. Of course, the flip side of that argument is that if Amazon really did win such a fight, how long would it be until the RIAA ramps up its lobbying efforts to get Congress to change copyright law to explicitly add such a bogus "right to listen to your own music if it's stored on a different computer."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 4:49pm

    Repeal copyright. Period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dennis S. (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 5:19pm

    They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.

    So basically it is a file storage service for music you have already purchased for your own enjoyment that allows you to access said music anywhere for your own enjoyment (yes, it's possible some files some people upload could be pirated).

    The music industry wants us, or perhaps Amazon, to pay for it again if you use this service.

    It's the same old argument that they lost before about ripping music to MP3 players.

    What if I set up my own streaming server at home that did the same thing (just for me and I wouldn't give the password out)?
    By their logic I should pay for the music again.

    Goodness these people are morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike C. (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 8:38pm

      Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.

      Even worse...

      It's a FILE storage service that happens to have an app that will let you play music files stored there. The service doesn't care what kind of files you have. The Cloud Player just happens to be able to stream MP3's to whatever device you're using to connect to the remote file storage.

      To say that major media are just being greedy bastards here is a severe understatement.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        trilobug, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 9:02pm

        Re: Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.

        Yes, that is the problem. The recording industry thinks people give a damn about their music, when actually their opponents are arguing that their actions are screwing up many other things.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 5th, 2011 @ 2:14am

      Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.

      What if I set up my own streaming server at home that did the same thing (just for me and I wouldn't give the password out)?
      By their logic I should pay for the music again.

      Although that does seem to be their ultimate aim - to have you pay them every time you move/store/retrieve/listen to/think about music - in this case it's actually completely without logic...

      Setup UPnP music server on home wireless for streaming to your media player - WEP protected so you're not technically inviting people in but anyone who wants can probably get to everything you've got in about 5 seconds.... well that's absolutely fine (currently!).

      Store music on secure server that only you can easily get to unless you specifically give someone the password... oh well you'll need a license for that.Totally barmy.. but hten when was the last time a claim from these people made any kind of logical sense?

      Hmm sudden thought... by RIAA "logic", if I do the UPnP/WEP thing and someone "steals" all my music I should be able to have them arrested for theft and sue them for a whole bunch of damages for having deprived me of all that music... right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Apr 5th, 2011 @ 4:05am

      Re: They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 5:20pm

    Ye know why they fight so hard on streaming lockers like this don't you? Feel free to share this locker with all and woops, your crap just got public domained.

    I'm coming to the conclusion Mike after awhile technology is going to render any copyright a figment of our imaginations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Steven (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 5:29pm

      Re:

      I'm pretty sure copyright has always been a figment of our imagination, however some hold on to it very strongly, like the catholic church trying to come to terms with a round earth that wasn't the center of the universe.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Christopher (profile), Apr 5th, 2011 @ 1:27am

      Re:

      Like it isn't already a figment of our imaginations? The fact is that cultural stuff like music is supposed to have a small window where people make their dollars on it of about 5 years, regardless of the massive extensions of copyright today.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim L, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 5:26pm

    They should just try to wait

    This issue is already in court with Michael Robertson. If he wins that would give his company MP3tunes.com a huge price advantage http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=341

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 5:52pm

    i've been using this service from amazon since it started last week. I like it. But that doesn't mean i won't end my account if Amazon publicizes that they didn't fight for this and just paid for a license. I already purchased my media and refuse to pay for it again. nor will i be a party to the losers in the RIAA getting additional money just because i have an account. even if my account only costs amazon 1 cent i will still cancel it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 6:29pm

    "... other kinds of features (such as limited music sharing for people who both have the same songs in their collections)."

    Ummm, why would you share a song the other person already has? Anyhoo....

    Ok... So... I've got a brilliant idea...

    Start up a children's bookstore. Sell the book with the understanding that they own a license to the content. Then, when they try to read it aloud to their children at bedtime, sue them and their children (and their neighbors, if they leave the window open.) You'll be rich - so long as you send a bogus enough letter that they pay up out of fear, instead of going to court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Other problems Amazon must deal with

    Amazon might not be the best test case for whether you need a license to let people listen to their own music. A standard part of on-line music sales licenses is that Amazon only allows people to download music it sells once. Therefore the question is whether Amazon is violating its contract with the labels when it lets users download music more than once from the locker. It sounds like there might be a couple of other pesky little contract issues, so the decision to pay up might be based more on contracts than on copyright. Of course, if Amazon pays up for any reason I am sure that the labels will cite the Amazon Cloud as setting a precedence for the need for cloud storage streaming licenses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      CommonSense (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 7:12pm

      Re: Other problems Amazon must deal with

      Amazon isn't really letting it's users "download music more than once from the locker". From what I understand, it's letting you stream it over a media player from your on-line storage account, which is basically like having an on-line iPod, or an external hard drive that you store your music on and hook up to your entertainment center to listen to (only portable).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 7:01pm

    It's solely a greed move if they get streaming fees

    This is no different than loading up a portable hard drive or mp3 player full of tunes and plugging it into someone else's computer. It's more convenient, but playing music via any player is "streaming," whether the player exists solely online or not.

    "Streaming" = "playing." The only difference is the vagueness of internet "space."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    CommonSense (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 7:03pm

    Even bigger...

    I think there's an even bigger loss here. If Amazon were to put up a fight, they have the resources to bleed the RIAA a bit in court, no? Not likely enough to kill them, but I'd like to think maybe enough to make it harder for them to get their "right to listen to your own music if it's stored on a different computer."

    To be honest, I believe that the RIAA needs Amazon much more than Amazon needs them. I go to Amazon for a lot of stuff, none of which is music. I know a few people that do go there for music though, and if Amazon stopped offering it for them, they wouldn't go somewhere else to pay for it if you know what I mean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Richard Cranium, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 7:47pm

    The Cave-In

    Amazon isn't going to cave in because if the music labels sue Amazon, Apple and Google will side with Amazon against the labels.

    Follow the Money.

    While it's true that the music labels could burn the Amazon bridge and survive, they could not burn the Amazon, Apple, Google bridge without serious permanent harm.

    The reason Amazon chose to do it now is because both Apple and Google have similar systems eminent. Both Apple and Google will come running to Amazons aid in the event of a suit against Amazon.

    They want to not have to pay a licensing fee. They are going to move heaven and earth to make sure they don't.

    I'm sure that SOMEONE at Google/Amazon/Apple realized that if you impose a licensing fee on music lockers, which would have to be passed on to the consumers, the consumers would vote with their pocketbooks to walk away from any such scheme, dooming it to early death.

    The record companies don't care about this. They are not in the business of expanding choices for the consumer as they have proven time and time again.

    They are not in the business of protecting the artist as they have proven time and time again.

    They are in the business price-fixing, price gouging, legislation fixing, law bending and law breaking all in the service of perpetuating a business system that only exists as a shadow of it's former self.

    "We made billions this way in the 70s and by god if we can shove all the tech genies back in the bottle again we will make billions once more."

    They are in the business of screwing over as many people as they can to keep their failed business model afloat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Apr 4th, 2011 @ 8:33pm

    This is why I don't buy music anymore.

    Why would I buy music that is tied down in all of this melodrama when I can find free music that isn't caught up in all of this "pay up or else" dogma? Screw retail music. It's not worth it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out the way, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 10:00pm

    I jbuy good music from great artists.
    And when I do it plays everywhere I go and often loud enough for everyone within a half a block to hear.
    And if any institution has a problem with that they can kiss my ass.
    I don't rock to you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    iveseenitall, Apr 5th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    @Labels
    Keep this shite up and you are gonna lose this lifelong paying customer.
    Enough is enough is enough already.
    Sincerely,
    -countless albums and cds during the last twenty five years.
    -almost 1500 downloads from THE store on my 3 macs.
    Choose.

    PS; Is there any good news? Any new or innovative stuff for me/us?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Fernando, Apr 5th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    The latter option is the more likely, not most, when comparing only two items.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Aerilus, Apr 5th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    God, amazon grow some balls or borrow Job's

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This