Amazon tells record labels to back off, Cloud Drive licensing not necessary

By on Apr 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Services April 12, 2011

Record labels seem to have a hard time understanding one, simple truth: after a consumer purchases a song — be it on a CD or digitally — the consumer owns that file. Period. It is, however, nice to know that at least one large corporation respects that fact, Amazon. In a letter penned to music labels, the online retail giant stated that its new Cloud Drive music service has boosted digital MP3 sales and goes on to explain why it does not need permission from record labels for its use. “There has been speculation that we are looking for licenses for Cloud Drive and Cloud Player,” reads the e-mail. “We are not looking for licenses for Cloud Drive or Cloud Player as they exist today — as no licensees are required.” Amazon continues, “Cloud Player is a media management and play-back application not unlike Windows Media Player and any number of other media management applications that let customers manage and play their music. It requires a license from content owners no more than those applications do. It really is that simple.” The company did mention that further improvements may require licensing, and that record labels can “expect to hear more” from Amazon on potential licensing “in the near future.” David Israeite of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) called the move “troubling,” and added that Amazon was not creating “an environment of trust and cooperation.”

Read

Tags:
, , , , , , , , ,
53 Comments

Related Articles

  • Anonymous

    I think Amazon, in this case is building a great environment of trust and cooperation… for its customers. Unlike the record labels, they don’t expect me to pay extra for each device i want to play the music i bought on.

  • Blackula

    thats pimpin right there Amazon! Plus i notice that labtop is the same one i got lol :D

  • Napleszen

    Amazon has just earned my loyalty, keep at em, and dont give in.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Amazon is saying this. Because “they” don’t want to pay the license fee’s and charge you the same price for your music. This way they charge you the sane price for music minus their license cut to the record companies. Although kudos to Amazon for standing tall, but really? For you? I think not

    • Ask1about

      i think you missed how it works…Amazon is not selling music here..all they are doing is storing YOUR music on their servers and then you can play it by accessing their servers…there is no need for licensing this because no actual sales are made!

      The NMPA has a legitimate concern in trying to get details out of Amazon on how to prevent storing of illegal music…(and thats about all they have a right to ask)

      On the other hand Amazon does not HAVE TO report to NMPA before launching the service…Amazon does not need their “permission”…

      And I laugh at the thought that the NMPA finds it troubling that permission was not asked..its like they think they are the government and companies need their approval before doing anything lol

      That said, if you own illegal music, would you really upload it to a 3rd party server?

  • Steve Hillshire

    GO AMAZON!!!! Always had my business with mp3s + embedded album art (not like CrapTunes) and will continue to get my business for doing things the way I like to see them done.

  • http://twitter.com/perderedeus Tim Gulics

    I like the big middle-finger they’re giving the NMPA. Send the same to the RIAA, and the record companies. If I buy a song, I can store it in the cloud. It isn’t any different than sharing out something on my always-on home PC and watching it/listening on other devices. DVRs are also already doing this. Hell, Microsoft has a commercial on national TV, where a couple accesses their home DVR/PC via the cloud to watch a recorded show while they’re stuck in an airport.

    I think they’re just sore they didn’t get it to market first. They should have had a music download/purchasing system in place since the Napster debacle, or at least a competitor when iTunes hit, and they would have been better positioned to offer something like Cloud Drive, today. Apple, and now Amazon, beat them to the punch.

  • http://twitter.com/belogical2 Be Logical

    I heart Amazon!

  • Anonymous

    I would have preferred,
    “Dear Record Label Executives,

    Get stuffed.

    Love,
    Jeff Bezos”

    …but this will do.

  • Booboolala2000

    Record companies can’t tell me what I am going to do with files I already own. Shame on them. This ain’t napster baby. Nothing funky going on here. Time for David Israeite to go work for iTunes.

  • http://profiles.google.com/booboolala2000 Patrick Crumpler

    And it works great on my MacBook Pro, TBolt and Google TV. Suck that Apple, and record companies.

  • Anonymous

    Amazon is not creating an environment where the NMPA and their ilk can tell everyone to bend over and graph their ankles.

  • Karen Lynn Ali

    I am totally convinced that success is and always will be in the eye of the beholderess

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=560795878 Kevin Passino

    Kudos to Amazon for standing up for us on this one. OK, so I get the fact that they’re just looking out for themselves, but the thing is, Amazon understands that they’re here to serve US (the consumers) and making things easier/more pleasant for us means more money in their pockets. They’re NOT stupid. I agree that every business is at their core only looking out for themselves, but I tend to support those businesses that benefit us while still turning huge profits.

1 2
blog comments powered by Disqus