Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's Cloud Player: We Don't Need a License
halfEvilTech writes "Amazon has launched Cloud Drive and Cloud Player without securing streaming licenses from the music industry. But does it need to? Amazon says 'No.' The music industry? 'Yes.'" Do I need a license to stream MP3s from system RAM to the MP3 player? From my hard drive to RAM? From my file server to my machine?
My.MP3.com tried out a similar argument years ago, and it cost them a $53 million lawsuit (which bankrupted them). And in many ways this is even worse. MP3.com at least required you to prove you actually owned a disc before you could stream it. Amazon will let you upload ANYTHING (pirated, ripped, bought--makes no difference) and stream it.
Now Amazon certainly has a better cadre of lawyers at its disposal than mp3.com did. And it has a lot more muscle with the industry (since it's once of the leading music retailers). But, even with that, this is still a stunningly ballsy move on their part. Hell, Sony sues people for even looking funny at their IP.
And, yes, I hope Amazon wins out on this. If nothing else, it would set a nice precedent for Google and Apple to open up their upcoming music cloud services in a similar fashion.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Do I need a license to stream MP3s from system RAM to the MP3 player? From my Hard Drive to RAM? From my File Server to my machine?
Don't give them any ideas!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The TV content providers are objecting to cable companies streaming their shows to iPads and other "non TV" devices in the home, even though they are being paid for that content. I don't understand their argument, but their logic is unmistakable; they want more money, more money, more money. I hope Amazon wins this thing on very broad grounds. I don't mind paying for content, but once and only once and for any device I own.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Amazon now has the benefit of CNN et al. v. CSC Holdings, aka the Cablevision Remote DVR Lawsuit, where the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Cablevision's favor and specified that, in part, the specific actions of the remote user instructing the remote DVR to record and play back the copyrighted material served to exclude Cablevision from liability. SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal on this, so other circuits might be inclined to agree with the 2nd Circuit.
There are probably some differences here (not knowing about the specific functionality of Cloud Player, I won't speculate), so it'll be interesting to see how far Amazon can push the envelope.
The linked article definitely gives the sense that merely being sued by the record companies is deterrent enough, and that "doesn't sound particularly good for Amazon."
We need to get past the fear-mongering and extorsion of the RIAA and MPAA and remember that we have fair use rights. You are *not* entitled to the success of the business model of your choosing. If your business model is illegal, too bad.
I'm pleased to no end that we finally have someone as big as Amazon, a company with a proven track record of leveraging a legal advantage (remember one-click?), taking on this fight. It's your music, on your private space, not shared with anyone else. The record companies would have you pay a fee to hum a tune to yourself in your car.
If you ask the RIAA what you need a license for, the short answer is "everything" according to them. They exist because they seek to claim rights to everything possible and expect people not to take the issue to court when they need an exception.
The RIAA and similar activities are criminal in my opinion as they are extortionists who routinely claim to have rights over materials they do not have rights to. If the RIAA is to persist, the government needs to hand down an exclusive list of what they can claim and the requirements on how to make claims... requirements such as proof the material being litigated over is actually covered by their "watch." Further, I think in order to assert copyright protection, the copyrighted materials should be registered with the library of congress formally and in an unprotected digital format. (They should at least pretend to honor the social bargain of copyright and eventual public domain.)
Do I need a license to stream MP3s from system RAM to the MP3 player? From my Hard Drive to RAM? From my File Server to my machine?
From one party to another? They might have legal footing but not based on that logic.
Yes, before mp3.com launched their my.mp3.com service which was declared illegal.
Myplay tried to get the record industry interested in downloads, but they couldn't get any interest from the majors, the best they could do was their online storage service and DMCA compliant user tailored radio streams. No flash in those days either, you needed to configure winamp or some other external player to actually stream the content.
myplay never had any legal issues, they simply didn't have enough money to maintain such a service back when terabytes of disk space were only available in refrigerator sized racks of disks, and when most people were still on modem connections.
You didn't buy a license you bought a copy. CDs do not come with EULAs or ToS that dictate otherwise and I've never opened a jewel case and found such an agreement. Admittedly, it's been years since I bought anything from a major studio, but I doubt that much has changed.
Consequently, if that's how they view it and expect it to be treated, they'd be liable for all sorts of false advertising and fraud suits.
And in many ways this is even worse. MP3.com at least required you to prove you actually owned a disc before you could stream it.
Ah, but MP3.com ripped the disks and provided the copy to you, which is actually a pretty clear contradiction of copyright law (though perfectly ethical). Amazon is just storing and transmitting data that you provide. I don't know of anything in the law that would restrict this.
I hear that if you say RIAA three times in a row in front of a mirror that the MPAA sues you for copyright infringement.
From the Amazon MP3 Uploader App Help page:
Files not supported by the Uploader
The following is a list of supported file formats and some of the unsupported file formats. Unsupported files will not show up in the Uploader as they are not available for upload.
Supported file formats
Unsupported file formats
It will be interesting to see how well Amazon stands up to the inevitable court challenges. For music purchased from AmazonMP3, they are certainly on very solid ground, since they can prove that the Cloud Drive user is the purchaser; if Amazon has the legal right to download you the MP3 you just bought, they certainly have the right to download it for you again. The music industry has already taken their (very generous) cut in that case. You paid for it, you get to use it.
Playing back non-AmazonMP3 files is where I think it gets a little sticky.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The music industry's official distribution channels have come down to Target, Walmart, Apple and Amazon for most of their sales. I suppose there's "FYE," but I can't remember the last time I was in one.
Of those four, Amazon is probably the least evil in terms of what it does to suppliers. Walmart in particular is legendary for cackling like the wicked witch as it tightens the vice around its suppliers' nuts just for shits and giggles. Apple is not as bad, but is run by a man who wouldn't hesitate to make an example of a record label that screwed with it in a way that they deemed "unacceptable."
Really, Amazon is a big stick with which they can beat both Apple and Walmart if they play their cards right. Which is about as likely as the RIAA's executive suing Congress over the DMCA calling DRM an unconstitutional and "socialistic" restraint of trade.
Amazon has shown several times now that they're willing to go toe to toe with the RIAA. They had DRM free music before that was the standard, and now they're pushing for cloud storage and streaming. Everything they're doing in regards to the music industry is pro-user and pro-consumer. So what about the Kindle? Why do they bend over backwards at every turn to please the book publishing industry and continue to DRM protect their eBooks? Why is it that they didn't fight the publishing industry on the Text-to-Speech feature? Why aren't they fighting for the consumer's right to lend books to their friends? Amazon is only fighting for the consumer on the MP3 issue because they have nothing to lose. They're a small time player in digital music services and they want to make a mark. If they get shut down, they're no worse off than they are now, but if it takes off they have a chance to be the first out of the door with a HUGE service. I'm becoming less and less confident we'll ever see Amazon fight for the consumer when it relates to the Kindle.
Frozen Insanity
http://frozen-solid.net
In 2009, Amazon's corporate revenues were $26.53B. For the same year, the entire RIAA's revenues were only $6.3B.
Amazon should be able to swat them down like a fly.
Honestly, by and large, I cannot parse a thesis out of your post to respond to. That being said, there are a couple things in it that, if I understand them correctly, are used erroneously to form some sort of "MP3.com should have been considered legal" thesis.
Yes, but there is little doubt you're infringing copyright by uploading a copy of a song to Amazon (or ripping it off your CD or anything). However, there is this nice affirmative defense called "fair use." The factors of fair use come out differently when applied to the two systems at issue.
The snag is that not everything can be considered a "normal use." I do come down on the side of space shifting (which is basically what this service is) being fair use, but you're making a conclusory statement when you say copying your music to another "person's" hard drive across the globe is "normal" use. You need to defend it, and that's precisely what is going to be at issue if this went to court.
But it probably won't go to court; Amazon and Google will settle out of court like Google did with the books issue. They'll pay some kind of license to the recording industry because it's cheaper than litigating the issue. It'll take a small company (that can't afford to—or is not willing to—settle) offering a similar service and a talented group of cause lawyers (like the EFF) to get the ruling at the SCOTUS level.
Isn't a streaming license intended to charge a fee for streaming content to which the listener likely doesn't own a license; or at the very least, is unknown? In this case, hasn't the listener already paid (assuming the content isn't stolen) for a license on the content they are streaming to themselves? Assuming I understand the issue correctly, it really sounds like they are trying hard to double dip and receive payment twice for the same license.
Anyone know if consumer music has an explicit streaming license clause attached? And if so, has that ever been tested?
>Do I need a license to stream MP3s from system RAM to the MP3 player?
>From my Hard Drive to RAM? From my File Server to my machine?
According to the Music Industry to need to pay licensing fee for:
- Ripping CDs to the CPU
- Copying music in the CPU to the cache
- Copying music in the cache to RAM
- Copying music in RAM to the Hard Drive
- Copying music between Hard Drives
- Copying music from your PC to your MP3 player
- Uploading or downloading music from your internet backup
- Uploading or downloading music to and from any backup media and/or server(s)
- Listening to your music on any device
- Listening to music on TV, Radio, etc
- Having music in any format
- When someone on your block did one of these things and didn't pay them
- Saying the word "music"
- Listening or singing any music, including any song they do not own
- For living
- For being dead
If you don't believe me look up some of the lawsuits the RIAA has filed.
More importantly, a big chunk of those RIAA revenue came through Amazon. They are the #2 music retailer after Walmart. They can slow down the money pipe, and quickly, for the label that gets in front of this bus. Worst case, they go scorched earth and quit selling that label's albums for a week. Every artist on the label's roster will freak. Investors will panic. Blood in the streets.
Amazon owns those guys. And that's while this will last. A smaller site could never get away with it. In the end, public policy and rule of law is once again a leaf on the wind when corporate interests clash. The loser is market competition, and eventually, all of us.
You own a copy of that music, big difference. Which means that this...
...is total BS. You can buy music, transfer it to any devices you own, make a thousand personal backup copies of it, destroy it, list it on Ebay for a billion dollars - and there's not a damned thing the label can do about it.
What copyright restricts you from doing is making copies of music and distributing them without permission. All this "licensing" nonsense is just RIAA propaganda.
Now that that's out of the way, would you by chance be interested in purchasing some oceanfront property in Nebraska?
Just like you can't buy a car, reverse engineer it, and start mass-producing that car and competing with Mazda with their own product. You bought the car, not the plans to the car, nor the rights to sell it.
Well, actually, you can, for most auto parts There's no copyright in functional parts. For that, you need a patent. There is a big aftermarket auto parts industry. The parts are copies of the originals, not new designs. The major auto manufacturers have tried to get legislation to stop that in the US, but Congress rejected it.
You forgot the $73 trillion that they'll be collecting from LimeWire.
Do I need a license to stream MP3s from system RAM to the MP3 player? From my Hard Drive to RAM? From my File Server to my machine?
17 USC 117(a): "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner."
So, no.
And before you start arguing that MP3s aren't computer programs:
17 USC 101: "A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."
One more point. Unlike some pure-music shop, Amazon's revenue comes from a variety of sources. If Sony told Amazon "You can't sell Sony music anymore", it would be a hit in revenue, but Amazon has enough other revenue sources that it would be a small one. Meanwhile, if Amazon told Sony, "We're not stocking Sony music anymore", your scenario above would result. The labels are trying a power play on a player with more power than them. Pass the popcorn, this should be fun to watch.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You bought the car, not the plans to the car, nor the rights to sell it.
Really? You're telling me I don't have the right to sell a car I own? You might want to check your facts there.
There's a huge difference between streaming from your hard drive versus streaming from amazon. Yoru hard drive is YOUR hard drive. No one profits when you stream from your hard drive.
Not really. Is it OK if I put my mp3's in my Dropbox folder so I can listen to them at both work and at home? That's certainly not MY hard drive, but it seems perfectly legit to me.
Amazon is NOT starting a streaming service where you don't have to pay; what they ARE doing is starting a service that helps people listen to music they already own. If I have the right to listen to my music (which of course the RIAA would prefer I didn't), then why don't I have the right to hire a company to help me do it?