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!"
I hear Apple already has a music service. They're calling it "iTunes". It'll never catch on, I'm sure!
Except that Google has the wherewithal to buy the music industry outright. The RIAA would actually have to sue and win (as opposed to litigating a smaller opponent into bankruptcy), which might be rather difficult, seeing as how these cloud-storage services merely give users the ability to store their own files for later retrieval and don't really facilitate piracy.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
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.
You're overestimating the music industry; while I'm sure that no one wants a long, drawn out lawsuit, Google sees about twice as much revenue than the entire recording industry*. (Plus, they've got a business model that doesn't revolve around suing their users.) I'm not sure that the RIAA's lawyers would be too eager to sue Google; it's easy to arm-twist a $2000 settlement out of a college kid, and if one or two of them do end up going to court, the RIAA can certainly outlast any private individual. However, suing someone bigger than you, who has an experienced in-house legal team, is a whole different ballgame.
* Gotta back up my claims. For the sake of this argument, "the record industry" doesn't contain indie labels; they are too fragmented to coordinate their power. That leaves us with:
Sony Music Entertainment: $1.33 billion
Universal Music Group: $6.14 billion
Warner Music Group: $3.49 billion
EMI: $1.65 billion
versus
Google: $29.32 billion
(all values USD, anual revenue, as listed on Wikipedia)
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.
>>>remember when they had a 90+% hold on the PC market? ...Amiga, Commodore and IBM and the rest fractured the market.
There was never a time when Apple held that high share. The #1 selling computer of the late 1970s was the Tandy-Randy Shack 80 (TRS-80). In 1982 Atari 400/800 briefly held the crown. From 1983-86 the Commodore 64 dominated the market. And then finally the IBM PC/clones (1987 to present).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"