Amazon's Cloud Player: We Don't Need a License 539
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the of-course-you-don't dept.
from the of-course-you-don't dept.
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?
Re:As I and many others pointed out yesterday (Score:5, Interesting)
Evolving case law (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:As I and many others pointed out yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a whole different ballgame when a for-profit company takes music it doesn't own, stores it, and streams it out, even if you are the one who is asking them to do so.
I don't think it is. Generally, if it's legal for you to do something, it's legal for you to employ someone to do it on your behalf. I would be surprised if it would be illegal for me to, say, pay someone to come round to my house and rip my CDs for me. Amazon's system seems to be broadly analogous.
If they were smart, they'd work with Amazon (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:As I and many others pointed out yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting Amazon.com vs. the RIAA into perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:As I and many others pointed out yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As I and many others pointed out yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
"Asinine" is the record labels' established business plan AND profit model, you understand.
In fact, "Asinine" might actually be a record label.
It is. http://www.emusic.com/label/Asinine-Records-CD-Baby-MP3-Download/402721.html [emusic.com]
(Admittedly, it's more of a 'label' than a label, having released one album and apparently being a self-publishing pseudonym, but still...)