Slashdot Mirror
Google Launching Music Service Without Labels
fysdt writes "Google Inc is set to launch an online music locker service to allow users to store and access their songs wherever they are, similar to one launched by Amazon.com Inc in March. And like the Amazon Cloud Drive player, Google music service is being introduced on Tuesday without any prior licensing deals with major music labels, following months of fruitless negotiations."
from old media, over me accessing songs I own from wherever I am, or any device I have.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
Google has been negotiating with the music publishers and the negotiations were described as "fruitless." This can only mean that the music industry wanted payment for every time a user plays music that he already paid for and Google didn't want to allow it.
So, in the end, we will see this service become popular and the industry will challenge this in court initially seeking injunctive relief and eventually "performance royalties" among other damages.
I, of course, anxiously await the legal tangle. Google is a hero for many here on Slashdot for various reasons. I still see them as a marketing company with their own angle and interests at heart, but I do appreciate the fact they are willing to fight for their cause rather than simply roll over and pay people just to stay out of court.
Marvelous. Buying the law.
The future of music, with music labels crushed and Google dictating how musicians are paid, is bright.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The parent companies are bigger. That may seem like small difference,but Google and Amazon can afford 10 years of litigation. MP3.com couldn't.
Where's MP3.com right now? They tried this 10 years ago, and got shot down in court. What's different now?
I think the difference is that Google has unlimited money for legal defense.
As opposed to the present, with the public being crushed and the labels dictating how musicians are paid?
Or how many new people can be brought into the market. I never used iTunes because I didn't to have anything to do with Apple. But I'd give those others a look.
I feel a song coming on...
Buying the law, buying the law
Buying the law, buying the law
Buying the law, buying the law
Buying the law, buying the law
(to the tune of Judas Priest - Breaking the Law)
Just need to rewrite the other verses...
If DJs use poor-quality encodes of tracks in your world, I don't want to live there.
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
There isn't any useful president from the mp3.com case because a "music locker" requires that people rip & upload the songs themselves, meaning it'll go into a long legal fight, and google has far more money than the labels.
In fact, if any label gets too uppity, google can simply buy them outright or coerce their owners. Warner Music's entire market cap is only $1.22B, meaning google could easily just buy them outright and terminate the upper management, legal team, etc. All the others are small subsidiaries inside much large companies that might see little benefit in tangling with Google.
I doubt EMI's owner Citigroup would tangle with Google, even though their market cap is 129B. Any bank likes keeping rich people happy. If they did, I'm sure google could launch a hedge fund to poach Citigroup's best quantitative analysis, then let the rest of the financial industry eat them alive. Sony and Vivendi (UMG) have market caps of 29B and 23B, respectively. I'd imagine their less vulnerable to talent poaching than Citigroup too, but you might still threaten some executive and board member positions by working through their larger stock holders.
A cheaper solution might just be threatening to provide lawyers for all the little people they've extorted money from by threatening to sue, a few $40k per year ambulance chasers could drag any label through thousands of expensive lawsuits for years.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
>>>Google dictating how musicians are paid
Welcome to the world 99% of the other wage-slaves have to deal with. Do you think WE get to tell our bosses how/when we wish to be paid? Of course not. The corporation dictates how laborers get paid, and there's no reason to think Musicians, Actors, Authors, etc should be any different. I figure in the future they'll all be paid by the Hour, rather than per sale.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I think Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, et cetera should be sued by the US DOJ under antitrust laws. Time to break them up and/or bring them under direct government control (like the phone and electricity monopolies). i.e. price-fixing
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
maybe you have that backwards? instead of telling the artists "hey, no one else get's paid that way so you shouldn't", we say "hey how can we get that?"
I hate when someone sees something they don't have they want to take it away from others instead of try and get it themselves.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on