Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Launching Music Service Without Labels

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the put-it-in-yer-locker dept.

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."

7 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Can't wait to see the backlash.... by Admodieus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"
    1. Re:Can't wait to see the backlash.... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ever see a tv commercial for a dvd movie:

      "own it on dvd today!"

      their own words. in plain english.

      (I rest my case)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Can't wait to see the backlash.... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "own it on dvd today!"

      Technically, what you "own" in that description is the physical media.

      So you're saying that "it" is the DVD. Fair enough. So you "own [the DVD] on dvd"?

      No, it's perfectly obvious that the "it" in that advertising campaign refers to the information content, not the physical media it's stored on. That may not be what they mean, or even legally correct, but it is what they say.

      Anyway, who cares about owning a (non-recordable) DVD, apart from the included content? Would you pay $20 for a DVD without knowing what information it contained (if any)? It only makes sense for the subject of the advertisement to be the content, not the media.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  2. This can only mean one thing by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Lawsuit in 321... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Apple? by softWare3ngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Apple? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.