Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Releases Cloud-Based Music Service

Posted by samzenpus on from the aether-tunes dept.

c0lo writes "Right after rumors that Google was preparing to take on iTunes service with a digital music store of its own, Amazon has announced that it's entering the fight with a cloud-based music service of its own. From the article: 'Amazon Cloud Drive is a "personal disk drive in the cloud," while Amazon Cloud Player is, well, a Web-based music player. That's right--Amazon Cloud Drive will be something like Google's rumored digital music locker, a cloud-based storage system for all of your tunes.'"

22 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. It's cloud-based alright by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because if Amazon doesn't think the music studios are going to push back *HARD* on this, their heads are in the cloud. Here's a relevant quote:

    "We are disappointed that the locker service that Amazon is proposing is unlicensed by Sony Music," a spokeswoman for Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment told the Journal.

    Considering that Sony will sue people who even *talk* about putting their IP on the web, you think they're just going to sit back and watch while you allow everyone and his brother to put all their ripped Sony CD's on a web accessible service?

    All I can say is that Amazon (and Google and Apple if they intend to follow up with their rumored similar services) had better lawyer up.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:It's cloud-based alright by adamchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That link has nothing to do with copyright law and I don't even see how that case is at all relevant to Amazon's or Google's service. On top of that, Amazon isn't providing a music sharing service. Its a web based storage service that only you access.

      As for the lawyers, I HIGHLY doubt that any of the RIAA members have the financial balls to take on either Amazon or Google. Besides, if they go after either of the two companies, both companies have the financial means to pursue the case, most likely win the case, and set precedent that would bar the RIAA from ever pulling crap like that again. So I HOPE that the RIAA decides to try to sue.

    2. Re:It's cloud-based alright by gehrehmee · · Score: 2

      Precedent says that's not necessarily good enough. MP3.com had a huge library of music, that was only available if you proved you owned the CD already. They were shut down quite dramatically.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    3. Re:It's cloud-based alright by xhrit · · Score: 2

      this is not what it does though. from the looks of it this will allow you to play songs you buy from amazon in a special player that is totally locked down. in this respect it is pretty much exactly like itunes except you can only listen to music you buy from the amazon cloud in the amazon cloud player. player comes in android, mac, and windows flavors. chances are the studios are on board, just liek that are with amazon selling mp3s and what not.

      --
      Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
    4. Re:It's cloud-based alright by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      All the reports I've seen indicate that they will also let you upload your own MP3 and AAC files to the server. And obviously Sony isn't on board, at least.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:It's cloud-based alright by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a small, yet significant, difference between Amazon Cloud Drive and MP3.com. MP3.com was ripping tons of CDs. They then had you insert your CD in the drive so you could get access to their ripped version online. Amazon is letting users upload their own files. Yes, these could be pirated files or files that the user owns, but this is the user's responsibility. Plus, unless the user shares their Amazon login information with others, they will be the only ones able to access those music files. It should be easy to weed out TOS violators (people who store pirated MP3s and then let others log in to retrieve them) without shutting down the entire service.

      Besides, if this becomes MP3.com vs RIAA: Round 2, I hope that Amazon points out that their Cloud Music service could be replicated by anyone with a web hosting account and FTP software. My hosting account has unlimited storage. (I know, it's really not "unlimited", but I can store more than the 5GB that Amazon is offering.) If I made a folder called "My Music", which I didn't tell anyone about, and uploaded my MP3s there, they would be backed up the same as with Amazon Cloud Drive. For additional security, I could password protect the folder so if someone stumbled upon mysite.com/My Music/, they wouldn't be able to get in. For even more security, if the host so offered it, I could put the files outside of the website's root so they would only be available over FTP.

      Basically, if Sony is allowed to say that Amazon's Cloud Storage is illegal, than so is any web hosting service. After all, just because I'm not uploading MP3s of Sony music to my web space doesn't mean I *can't*. And since I theoretically could do this, why would a web hosting service be legal while Amazon Cloud Drive would be illegal. (Especially since web hosting services are specifically designed to share files out and you need to take action to prevent this.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:It's cloud-based alright by MistrBlank · · Score: 2

      It doesn't have to be.

      Sony, I already paid for the license, just go EFF yourself.

    7. Re:It's cloud-based alright by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

      Just because Sony may be overly litigious doesn't mean they will be successful.

      I always hope that they will fail in all their jackboot lawsuits. Yet they always seem to be on the winning end of every motion, subpeona, and trial. Even when they pull shit like the infamous rootkit, all THEY get is a slap on the wrist, while everyone who illegally downloads their stuff gets their door kicked in by cops and their lives destroyed.

      The legal actions to which you're referring are between Sony and individual non-wealthy people. Amazon is actually much bigger than Sony. Amazon is bigger than the entire music industry, in fact. If Google and Apple also get in on the fight, you're looking at those three companies fighting a group of entertainment companies that's an order of magnitude smaller than they are. That doesn't mean they'll win, but it at least shows that legal resources won't be so lopsided in favor of the RIAA.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    8. Re:It's cloud-based alright by WhirlwindMonk · · Score: 2

      You inserted the CD in the drive to prove you owned the CD, and your mp3.com account was updated saying that you own the CD. Showing that you owned the CD gave you access to the copies of the files on their servers. From that point on, you could stream that music from their servers to any device with web access, regardless of whether you had the CD with you or not. Kind of like entering a serial number to activate software.

  2. Clouds and overages by dicobalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer my clouds to be in the sky. I also prefer not to go over my 250GB monthly cap.

    1. Re:Clouds and overages by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      I prefer my clouds to be in the sky. I also prefer not to go over my 250GB monthly cap.

      Not to mention the 250MB or 2GB limits on cell data plans.

    2. Re:Clouds and overages by zoloto · · Score: 2

      It's pretty sad and pathetic that there are bandwidth limitations.

  3. Too bad I don't download music anymore. by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I only really listen to streaming music these days, with Spotify and Grooveshark.

    OK, with one exception: Downloading stuff to put on a USB drive for the car radio. But this doesn't really have a place there either.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  4. nothing new.... or is it? by xhrit · · Score: 2

    If this "personal disk drive in the cloud" is just marketoid bullshit keyword stuffing to describe a system that allows you to download stuff you have licensed from the internet then it is just another online music store. If they are actually streaming the music you licensed to you then it will have the same flaws as all other streaming music services like shoutcast and pandora - your music will be interrupted by lag and/or be riddled with obtrusive advertisements, and probably will only be accessable on approved players. However there is a 3rd prospect, that being Amazon Cloud Drive is a bit of both.

    In any case, it is not very interesting if you ask me.

    --
    Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
    1. Re:nothing new.... or is it? by LambdaWolf · · Score: 2

      If this "personal disk drive in the cloud" is just marketoid bullshit keyword stuffing to describe a system that allows you to download stuff you have licensed from the internet then it is just another online music store. If they are actually streaming the music you licensed to you then it will have the same flaws as all other streaming music services like shoutcast and pandora - your music will be interrupted by lag and/or be riddled with obtrusive advertisements, and probably will only be accessable on approved players.

      Not to mention that mysterious gaps in your collection will probably appear the minute Amazon gets squeamish about sexual morality or discovers they screwed up the licensing.

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    2. Re:nothing new.... or is it? by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      If this "personal disk drive in the cloud" is just marketoid bullshit keyword stuffing to describe a system that allows you to download stuff you have licensed from the internet then it is just another online music store. If they are actually streaming the music you licensed to you then it will have the same flaws as all other streaming music services like shoutcast and pandora - your music will be interrupted by lag and/or be riddled with obtrusive advertisements, and probably will only be accessable on approved players. However there is a 3rd prospect, that being Amazon Cloud Drive is a bit of both. In any case, it is not very interesting if you ask me.

      Or, since it is free (up to 5 GB) and you can upload your current music, you could just try it. I'm listening to the SuckerPunch soundtrack right now and so far it my experience has been a 4th prospect: that it will have neither of the issues you describe.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  5. Encryption and Privacy by arglebargle99 · · Score: 2

    I'm still looking, but I don't see any mention of how/if your music is encrpyted on thier servers, and how much they will cooperate/sell your information to the music companies.

    This could be a goldmine for the record companies if the music is stored unencrypted and Amazon provides/sells them access. Both in finding pirated music, and also in market research.

    "You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files: to provide you with technical support and address technical issues; to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats; or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law. "

    That language doesn't seem limiting enough to me. Investigate compliance could give 100% access to the record companies.

  6. Alternatives to Corporate Clouds by jchawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm always distrustful of a large companies managing my music collection. What happens when they can't make a profit and shut the service down? At best I have to deal with retrieving my media, at worst I could potentially lose access to everything.

    Most folks who read slashdot probably have all of the pieces they need to just build this service themselves. Broadband connected computer, iPhone or Android device, 3G or WiFi connection to the remote device or computer.

    If you have a media server at home or just a computer running Windows, OSX or Linux why not consider running Subsonic (http://www.subsonic.org)? Using subsonic I can stream my media to any computer using the in browser player and I with a client for my iPhone (isubms) I can stream to my iPhone over 3G or Wifi.

    I've been using this as my own personal Pandora radio in the car and it works great. The nice part about the client app for my iPhone is it can cache content for when I don't have 3G coverage.

    The total cost for this project was about $20 bucks since I was already paying for broadband and 3G cellphone service. I bought the $10 euro streaming license for subsonic and the $4.99 iPhone app. If you have an Android phone your costs are even cheaper as I believe there is a free client app for Android devices.

    This is the solution I've been looking for... For years!

    I know I sound like an infomercial but no longer having to remember to sync my device and having my entire music collection at my finger tips where ever I am is awesome.

  7. Amazon remotely wiped 1984 from peoples' kindles by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should you trust them to keep your things?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  8. Sounds nice for music, but not for general storage by Netnerd865 · · Score: 2

    If I were just using this for music, it may be worth trying, but if I would decided to store other files, I don't see what makes it better than any other cloud solution. There is no desktop app for exploring the directories and you can only upload files, not whole folders. I would have to set up a folder hierarchy instead of just uploading whole folders that are already arranged how I like them. Besides that, I would personally rather point a music player at some folder that's linked to cloud storage (like Dropbox) than use a web-based player.

  9. Windows Live SkyDrive by SpryGuy · · Score: 2

    I have to wonder how many Windows users know they already have something like 25GB free available to them via Windows Live SkyDrive.

    It's not like Microsoft makes this fact well known. And it's certainly not like Microsoft bends over backwards to make it easy to use.

    But maybe this announcement will force Microsoft to get off its ass and actually push/promote/enhance what they already have. For instance, it would sure be nice if Windows Live SkyDrive had built-in Explorer integration (rather than relying on 3rd parties to make it useful), and that it were as easy to share links as it is with, say, DropBox.

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  10. How are costs lower than S3? by randallman · · Score: 2

    According to this article, Cloud Drive is based on S3. The cost per GB for Cloud Drive is $1 per GB per year, where as S3 is $.14 per GB per month, or about $1.68 per GB per year plus transfer costs. Even if they're using reduced redundancy, Cloud Drive is still cheaper and S3 has transfer costs. Cloud Drive does require annual payments, so that may be a factor, but assuming they provide some sort of API to Cloud Drive or it's http and someone writes a library to access it, why would you pay more for S3?