Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Apple successfully past label blocks on iTunes cloud locker

updated 05:50 pm EST, Thu February 24, 2011

Apple finally helps labels accept iTunes locker

Apple may have finally overcome music label resistance to its iTunes and MobileMe media locker plans, multiple media executives said Thursday [reg. required]. The company may have persuaded them that the remote music storage wasn't a fully separate use but instead just a backup accessible from anywhere. The company likened it to "insurance," the FT was told.

Labels have in the past reportedly opposed the deal because they interpreted it as Apple offering a second download of a given track and thus something that needed a second round of royalties. As understood by most, Apple's solution would only let users upload the collection they already own and either stream or re-download it. The approach would help overcome storage limits on iPads, iPhones and the MacBook Air by giving access anywhere a usable Internet connection is available, and could also serve as a backup for owners who lose a collection.

Apple hasn't directly acknowledged plans but, just this week, admitted that its North Carolina datacenter was for iTunes and MobileMe network services due in the spring. Rumors have surfaced that the first fruits of this could be borne out at the March 2 iPad event, supported by word of it dropping MobileMe sales.

The same newspaper meanwhile noted that Google as continuing to face setbacks with its Google Music service. It now hoped to have the store live in March but still doesn't have all the necessary deals. The plan still involved a cloud locker.

Google has faced many of the same obstacles to its own music service, which it teased as far back as the Google I/O conference in May of last year. Its strategy was supposed to go hand-in-hand with Android 3.0 but would give both tablets and Android 2.x phones the same advantages proposed by Apple, although Google's experience with cloud syncing would let it push new songs directly to a given device or computer other than the one making the request.



By Electronista Staff
toggle

Comments

  1. danviento

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Dec 2005

    +2

    Music & VIDEO

    Let me know if this works for video too, plz. That's the one, heavy storage media that really sucks up room on the iPod.

  1. jpellino

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Oct 1999

    +5

    Electronista make headline also with grammar

    Seriously... You're allowed to use two lines in order to make a legible headline. We have plenty of pixels *and* electrons!

  1. MacOS

    Junior Member

    Joined: Aug 2002

    +6

    happy birthday today to Steve Jobs, born February

    happy birthday today to Steve Jobs, born February 24, 1955

  1. hayesk

    Professional Poster

    Joined: Sep 1999

    +14

    Only the labels...

    ...would consider re-downloading a track you already purchased as something that warrants a second round of royalties.

  1. legacyb4

    Mac Elite

    Joined: May 2001

    0

    Wonder if

    you can only have purchased tracks in that locker? Because all of my tracks are, ahem, purchased...

  1. jpellino

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Oct 1999

    +4

    Remember...

    Record labels were pushing for royalties to be collected from second-hand stores!

  1. global.philosopher

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2010

    +6

    @legacyb4...I think you will be right

    I suspect that Apple will ensure only iTunes bought content can be uploaded to the Cloud. This to me would be essential to get the key agreements in place with the record labels, etc.I think this is also why Google will struggle getting the agreements in place - because I suspect they would want to allow anything to be uploaded to keep their "open" image in the industry. Problem is, a lot if not most of their customers content is illegal (just read the Android blogs).

    For those with content that have mixed iTunes and other content aquired by dubious means I guess only the iTunes content will be stored in the Cloud but the (ahem) other stuff will have to be stored on the device/computer. This model allows the same freedom as Android but more work for the user. Ironically, this extra work might be enough to entice purchasing iTunes content rather than having to cope with the headache of separately managing content - another win for the labels, movie studios, etc.

    I've always believed that if you offer a better experience to the purchaser than the pirater then you can turn pirators into purchasers. There are thos of course who will never respect intellectual property.

    Comment buried. Show
  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    -11

    Re: @legacyb4

    I suspect that Apple will ensure only iTunes bought content can be uploaded to the Cloud. This to me would be essential to get the key agreements in place with the record labels, etc.

    Again, not sure why it's even in their purview. It's my music. Located on my disk space. Go away people.

    I think this is also why Google will struggle getting the agreements in place - because I suspect they would want to allow anything to be uploaded to keep their "open" image in the industry. Problem is, a lot if not most of their customers content is illegal (just read the Android blogs).

    Oh, right. The Mac universe is filled with music purchasing iTMS users, while anyone using Google are just a bunch of copyright thiefs. Yep. I'm sure that's true.

    For those with content that have mixed iTunes and other content aquired by dubious means I guess only the iTunes content will be stored in the Cloud but the (ahem) other stuff will have to be stored on the device/computer.

    I guess you've never heard of CDs? Most people have CDs they've ripped, which is perfectly legal, but is not iTMS purchased content.

    And my music is already on my computer. I don't need a damn locker. I just need apple to give me access to my music over the internet. But that ruins the whole "give us money" thing they've got going.

  1. global.philosopher

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2010

    +3

    @testudo

    This is all just speculation but remember that the iTunes store is run at cost (ie. no profit) and it cost Apple an estimated $1billion last year (marketing, quality control, etc). so the revenue coming from songs goes mostly to copyright owners and the rest (a small amount) goes to Apple and is used to run the electronic store. I am sure Apple would give the songs away for free if they could to enable the sale of more idevices but at the end of the day the copyright is not theres - it belongs to the music labels, independants, etc.

    Now think about it. If you were the copyright owner, would you just give your core business away for free to Apple or Google or Amazon or would you ensure the best deal is made for your business. Well Apple wants the music and Sony wants the license revenue so many of the terms that areinked in any potential cloud locker will be the result of collaboration between Apple and the music labels. Given the music labels would prefer you to re-buy music rather than upload CD's as there is no proof of purchase I do not think it is beyond reasoning that they ensure only iTunes music is able to be stored, And given they espsecially do not want to make it easy for music pirates I think you may be stuck with your old CD's. On the other hand maybe Apple were able to negotiate a better deal for legitimate music buyers and music imported from CD's may be able to be uploaded, but I doubt it...I guess we'll have to wait and see. One thing for sure though, I do not think Google has the same industry trust as given to Apple, especially since Googles business model is all about commoditizing everthing so they can skim revenue from ads.

    One final thing, I know I would trust Apple with my private data over Google who uses private data to better serve ads and increase ad revenue.

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    Re: @testudo

    This is all just speculation but remember that the iTunes store is run at cost (ie. no profit) and it cost Apple an estimated $1billion last year (marketing, quality control, etc). so the revenue coming from songs goes mostly to copyright owners and the rest (a small amount) goes to Apple and is used to run the electronic store.

    There is no way it cost a billion dollars to run the iTunes store last year. If it did, that means they raked in 1 billion dollars in their 'small amount', which means they're getting 5 billion dollars in sales last year. I don't think they got that.

    And who says it runs 'at cost'? If the iTMS and other stores were so unprofitable, Apple wouldn't be using their iPhone/iPad as a way to force developers to deliver via the iTMS, or force others to allow them to get a cut of subscriptions. Apple is raking in money on their store, they know it, and that's why they keep expanding it.

    I am sure Apple would give the songs away for free if they could to enable the sale of more idevices but at the end of the day the copyright is not theres - it belongs to the music labels, independants, etc.

    And that's fine. But I bought my CD. I ripped it to my computer. I put it on my iPod. If I want to store it online and stream it to my device, where exactly does the copyright come into play?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

SMS Audio Sync Sport on-ear headphones

When hitting the gym or going out for a trail run, headphones can cause a number of problems. From the ear buds getting slimy with swe ...

Adesso Xtream S3B Bluetooth speaker

Finding a speaker purpose-built for a specific need is challenging. Even when a Bluetooth speaker can be paired with a mobile device, ...

JBL Synchros E40BT headphones

For all the different configurations of headphones on the market, it's always a tough choice for buyers to get something that is just ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News