Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Launching Music Service Without Labels

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the put-it-in-yer-locker dept.

Google 406

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."

cancel ×

406 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Apple? (1, Funny)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085214)

So where's Apple now? Every big player should launch their service right now. It's way harder for the music industry to fight back then.

Re:Apple? (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085254)

I hear Apple already has a music service. They're calling it "iTunes". It'll never catch on, I'm sure!

Difference between iTunes and (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085288)

As I understand it, iTunes Store offers no streaming rentals (unlike Rhapsody) or hosted locker (unlike Amazon).

Re:Apple? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085284)

If every big player launches its own service, Apple's victory is assured through market fragmentation.

Re:Apple? (2)

Jibekn (1975348) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085414)

How so? Fragmentation didn't work out well for them in the past, remember when they had a 90+% hold on the PC market? They have what now? 5~%? After Amiga, Commodore and IBM and the rest fractured the market.

Re:Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085536)

Apple never had 90+% of the PC market.

AQuit making things up.

Re:Apple? (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085870)

I think he's talking about profit.

Re:Apple? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085670)

There was one, unified alternative to Apple - The PC. It wasn't 7 different companies all trying to convince users that they are the best, and that the user should take massive pains to migrate from iTunes.

That's another key difference. 90%+ of potential customers today are already using iTunes, so Amazon/Google/etc. has to convince people to leave all the music that they may have purchased in a protected format behind, and start over with them.

I don't see it.

iTunes Plus (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085764)

Amazon/Google/etc. has to convince people to leave all the music that they may have purchased in a protected format

Whether that's an easy sell or hard sell depends on how many people used iTunes Store for the first time after the first quarter of 2009, when Apple introduced DRM-free "iTunes Plus" music downloads.

Re:Apple? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085558)

It's rumored Apple bought the "iCloud" [appleinsider.com] domain name to do this sort of thing. We'll have to wait and see though, Apple traditionally sucks at doing web based stuff.

Re:Apple? (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085748)

Where's MP3.com right now? They tried this 10 years ago [wikipedia.org] , and got shot down in court. What's different now?

Re:Apple? (4, Insightful)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085796)

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.

Re:Apple? (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085826)

Where's MP3.com right now? They tried this 10 years ago [wikipedia.org] , and got shot down in court. What's different now?

I think the difference is that Google has unlimited money for legal defense.

Can't wait to see the backlash.... (4, Insightful)

Admodieus (918728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085234)

from old media, over me accessing songs I own from wherever I am, or any device I have.

What is a "music label"? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085730)

Sorry but I have never heard of these "music labels", what are they? Does that have anything to do with the ID3 in the mp3? If so ID3 data indeed does have to be better coordinated, too many mp3's are mislabeled with completely wrong ID3 data. Multible song and lyrics versions and lyrics .lrc syncrhonization is just a complete mess because there is no proper ID3 data standards, especially when it come to multiple versions of the same song by the same artist. Perhaps by putting it all in a cloud and comparing it we can choose the best versions of mp3's, ID3, and .lrc. Though somehow I think the RIAA is going to want to police and see receipts for everyone's cloud music data storage.

Re:What is a "music label"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085786)

You are clearly retarded. And your complaint, "too many mp3's are mislabeled with completely wrong ID3 data", just shows you've been pirating music from the wrong places.

Re:What is a "music label"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085794)

The misinformation in ID3's is a steganographic means of tracking decoys.

If you don't blank that shit and type it in yourself, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Can't wait to see the backlash.... (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085800)

RIAA sues Google in 5...4...3...

Lawsuit in 321... (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085246)

Just because it's Google, music labels won't let a piece of the pie to go to waste. Sadly.

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (5, Interesting)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085562)

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 [wikipedia.org] : $1.33 billion
Universal Music Group [wikipedia.org] : $6.14 billion
Warner Music Group [wikipedia.org] : $3.49 billion
EMI [wikipedia.org] : $1.65 billion
versus
Google [wikipedia.org] : $29.32 billion

(all values USD, anual revenue, as listed on Wikipedia)

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085716)

Yes, they make less money, but they have a lot more money to throw at lawyers and lobbyists than Google does. The record groups also have been in business with doing DRM for over a century.

Will Google end up being stomped into the ground like mp3.com? Even if Google doesn't get hit with a judgement than the entire GDP of the world times 10, there will be some sort of "compromise". For example, music can be uploaded, but not downloaded unless in a DRM format, or a charge placed on how much bandwidth is being used.

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085750)

Marvelous. Buying the law.

The future of music, with music labels crushed and Google dictating how musicians are paid, is bright.

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085838)

Trading one corporate overlord for another. Big whoop. For the sake of argument, can you tell me how Google could be worse than the RIAA?

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085846)

As opposed to the present, with the public being crushed and the labels dictating how musicians are paid?

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085766)

That's precisely it, the business model.

The recording industries have been getting warnings for the past decade that they need to change or die out. Well, it seems it's a little late now. Amazon dealt the first blow, and with Google jumping in, they'll definitely go under. Oh sure, it will take them a long time to draw their final breath, but it will be mostly a nuisance, similar to SCO.

Of course, it's not that late, they can either join Google, make some really nice deals, and increase their profits, since Apple is wringing them dry with their deals, or they can sue and sue and sue until they run out of money and credibility. Either one is good.

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085778)

"Gotta back up my claims"

Are you new here?

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085816)

The flipside of that argument is that there's only so much you can squeeze out of a college student whereas Google has deep pockets. Patent trolls regularly go after companies with the deepest pockets and they seem to do just fine.

Re:wants a long, drawn out lawsuit (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085840)

Ooh! I do! I want to see Google vs the **AA and affiliates! Nice and drawn out!

Then we can make a movie about it! It will be free with signup to Gmail!

Re:Lawsuit in 321... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085884)

If Google was stealing from you, would you not enlist the forces of the government in getting your property back?

And if you were a big company used to suing children for the content of their college funds, but saw a giant pot of money trundling along the horizon doing exactly the same thing those children were doing, could you avoid drooling?

If Google is doing anything infringing, the RIAA will peel them like a baggie of crystal meth, and the sound they make on the way to the courthouse will set off car alarms on Neptune.

Licensing (1)

colesw (951825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085274)

So they have no licensing deals, but its still US only? If they are basically following the strategy that it is easier to ask for forgiveness then permission, why not do it the world over?

Re:Licensing (3, Informative)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085346)

Presumably they have a legal opinion that they don't need a license to do this. In the US, fair use says you can copy your owned music to other media. That's not true in all countries.

Re:Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085422)

I thought that law applied to non-used backups only. I'm probably wrong since Google/Amazon are going ahead with it...

Re:Licensing (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085808)

Actually, there's an existing legal opinion that they can't do this.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in the case UMG v. MP3.com, ruled in favor of the record labels against MP3.com and the service on the copyright law provision of "making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner."

Re:Licensing (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085432)

Probably because they've only looked deeply into US copyright law and precedents, despite the US' best efforts there's not one world law. Europe for example is still two dozen sets of laws, despite the EU constitution and common EU directives. It's a huge market to launch in, this isn't like Spotify starting in Scandinavia. If this is a hit it'll quickly be worldwide I think.

Re:Licensing (3, Interesting)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085572)

Sure, if by "worldwide" you mean UK, France, Germany, Austrialia, Germany.

Google is a US company that offers all of their services in the US and only search, maps, and mail outside the US. They do offer some extra services to other countries, especially UK, but they don't really care about the rest of the world.

It's a shame, but that's how it works for us non-Americans. Especially people from the third world like myself. I'm tired of getting snail-mail spam from google, for $50 worth of Adsense, and not be able to get, say, Google Voice. Or Local (even though google really wants my location in my android phone). Or any other service really.

Sure, they claim there are licensing issues, local laws, etc. That's all bullshit. It's simple: they're US based, and the US market is so big there is no need to expand to the rest of the world.

I don't expect to see this service enabled for any country south of the equator, except Australia.

Re:Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085746)

so build your own sh*t why do you have to wait for them to feed you solutions? obviously you're online and capable of reading and writing and I imagine thinking. so get to working bro.....

Re:Licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085654)

Just like Voice went worldwide because it was quite popular. Oh wait, it didn't!

Personal host cloud host (1)

InakaBoyJoe (687694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085286)

This is a smoking gun to any pirated or "borrowed" music in your collection. Let the subpoenas begin! Or, you can leave the music at home and use something like Subsonic [subsonic.org] , which provides almost all the functionality of GMusic ... the client just needs some love and polish.

Re:Personal host cloud host (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085424)

Can other people see my music?

Then how will the RIAA know what I have there, what is the basis for the subpoena?

Re:Personal host cloud host (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085484)

Only people with something to hide would hide something.

Hey this Koan thing is fun...

Re:Personal host cloud host (3, Interesting)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085690)

Can other people see my music?

Then how will the RIAA know what I have there, what is the basis for the subpoena?

Also, how will the RIAA know when you obtained the pirated music? The statute of limitations clock in many cases is pinned to the last infringing act - so not only would they have to prove you had the files and obtained the music files through copyright infringement, they would have to prove that they were still inside the statute of limitations (three years for civil suits, five for criminal), which means proving you downloaded the music or shared it with someone else during a specific period of time.

Re:Personal host cloud host (1)

JimFive (1064958) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085898)

The statute of limitations clock in many cases is pinned to the last infringing act - so not only would they have to prove you had the files and obtained the music files through copyright infringement, they would have to prove that they were still inside the statute of limitations (three years for civil suits, five for criminal), which means proving you downloaded the music or shared it with someone else during a specific period of time.

You clearly made a copy when you put it on this new Google Service so that would be the most recent infringement date. Not only did you make a copy, you clearly distributed it (albeit to yourself).
--
JimFive

lace up your boots and hold on tight, slashdot (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085316)

there be a shitstorm a brewin in the sea of google.

Re:lace up your boots and hold on tight, slashdot (4, Interesting)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085442)

Except that Google has the wherewithal to buy the music industry outright. [slashdot.org] 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.

From trustworthy to antitrust-worthy (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085872)

Even if Google does have the financial resources to acquire a controlling interest in Sony, Vivendi, EMI, and WMG, doing so would raise red flags to competition regulators in multiple countries.

Captain McCallister sez (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085444)

yar, there be drama afoot

They don't need labels... (1, Funny)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085324)

...If Google becomes the label. If Google can do what MySpace succeeded at, which is become the home for small artists, Google may be onto something. They can go a step further and become the label, offering video and audio hosting, a store and perhaps even CD printing through suppliers. Bands would upload to Google rather than MySpace or with an independent label. It would be a natural extension to the service provider portfolio, Picassa, Docs, Voice, Apps etc.

If not, expect a legal creampie with only the lawyers (and the RIAA) profiting.

(Google lost the way but maybe they can claw back some? Either way, they're still evil.)

Legal creampie (3, Funny)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085344)

Apologies for this expression I just Googled it and regret my wording.

Just meant to imply it would be a massive orgy of corporate interests and expensive litigation.

Re:Legal creampie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085386)

creampie

massive orgy

You're not helping yourself there... Mr improfane indeed.

Re:Legal creampie (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085476)

I don't get the creme pie joke...?

Re:Legal creampie (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085658)

You must be new to the Internet.

Re:Legal creampie (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085762)

When you ride bareback and cum in a girl's pussy (or asshole)... afterwards, it drips out. That's a cream pie. Probably named after a combination of euphemisms (pussy = pie, sperm = cream) rather than the actual appearance -- it looks more like a bulldog after a mayonnaise sandwich. Eating them (either your own or another dude's swimmers) seems to be a fetish of sorts.

Hope that helps!

Re:Legal creampie (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085394)

Apologies for this expression I just Googled it and regret my wording.

Just meant to imply it would be a massive orgy of corporate interests and expensive litigation.

Dude, I just GIS'd 'massive orgy' to clarify your implication in the argument above. It was no improvement over 'creampie'.

I look forward to your 'Rusty Venture' metaphor.

Re:Legal creampie (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085566)

Well that's okay, just so long as you don't Google "google" -- you'll crash the whole internet.

Re:Legal creampie (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085586)

Given that this is largely uncharted legal territory, I'd say that Barely Legal Creampie is a more accurate term. And surely such a term will result in less titillating search results!

Re:They don't need labels... (2)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085590)

It sounded like Google was able to secure licensing deals from several labels, they specifically called out independent labels as being easy to work with, but it sounds like Sony and Universal refused to come to terms.

Clearly, this is not the music service Google wanted to offer. And Google director of content partnerships Zahavah Levine -- who led the company's negotiations with the major labels -- made it clear who she feels is to blame.

"We've been in negotiations with the industry for a different set of features, with mixed results," she told Billboard the night before the announcement was made. "[But] a couple of major labels were less focused on innovation and more on demanding unreasonable and unsustainable business terms."

Sources tell Billboard that Sony Music Group and Universal Music Group proved the bottlenecks in this case. Google wanted to offer a scan-and-match style locker service -- where instead of uploading different copies of the same track to store in a locker for each users, the service would scan users' libraries and match the songs they own to a centralized server, paying rightsholders for each stream. Without the rights to do so, the message from Google is clear -- either get on board or we'll move on without you.

"A large segment of the music industry worked cooperatively and was extremely helpful sorting out the issues of online licensing," she said, giving particular credit to the independent label and publishing communities.

But the same article also explicitly says they're launching without any licensing deals at all. It looks like Sony and Universal torpedoed the boat for everyone.

Re:They don't need labels... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085648)

Oh get real. Google's services are inevitably destined to fall into the unknown/geek category, with little to no market penetration. It's like Google doesn't even try beyond an initial half-hearted effort. It sucks because they are usually best from a purely tech standpoint.

Not sure about the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085334)

I already copied my favorite tunes to my Android phone and, since I carry it with me everywhere, I already have convenient access to my music wherever I am -- even if I don't have a 3G signal. Why would I want to move those files from my SD card to the cloud? So I can experience the frustration that goes with not getting a 3G signal at my work nor at my home? F that.

Re:Not sure about the point (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085468)

Because cloud computing is the future!!!! Buy into their marketing and buzzwords or be left behind!

Re:Not sure about the point (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085494)

I already copied my favorite tunes to my Android phone and, since I carry it with me everywhere, I already have convenient access to my music wherever I am -- even if I don't have a 3G signal. Why would I want to move those files from my SD card to the cloud? So I can experience the frustration that goes with not getting a 3G signal at my work nor at my home? F that.

You're walking quickly along the city street. A bus veers off and runs over you, causing serious injury and turning your phone into a bunch of dust. You are transferred to the local ER and saved (at no small expense, this is the US) by the dedicated hospital staff. You are upstairs on the ward with a morphine drip in your arm, dazed and confused. You look around for your trusty phone. It's gone. You wonder what to do - the only other source of distraction is your 88 year old demented roommate who has his television on QVC and cranked to volume 11.

A friendly nurse offers to lend you her laptop but all she has on it is Brittney Spears and some weird heavy metal from the '80s that makes your head pound even worse. It does have a 3G connection.

Now do you see why you need this service? Think of the edge cases, man!

Re:Not sure about the point (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085798)

If I had access to morphine and a friendly nurse, the only music necessary goes bow-chicka-bow-wow

Re:Not sure about the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085896)

Wow, that happened to me last week! If only I had had this product then!

Better still, without the phone at all, I would have understood why everyone without earphones in suddenly jumped out of the way of a marauding bus...

Re:Not sure about the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085502)

Who said move? Try copy. Load your phone. Load your cloud. Loud your hard drive. Pick and choose.

Re:Not sure about the point (1)

x1n933k (966581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085704)

That's great and all but it is still dependant on your device(s). You loose one, and you have to do it all over again. Add a new CD? It can be sync'd between the 3 devices consumers tend to have, phone, tablet and Desktop/Laptop. So instead of copying them one by one, or when you buy music online, having to dump it and back it up, the library is there.

A lot of people will really appreciate this service. I'm one. As a DJ I have a lot of backups of important music files and hard drives, records etc etc. Now I just keep the Analogue copies and one place for my digital copies. Instead of in CDs, phones, iPods, USBs, Extern-HDs. I'm tried of E-Waste too, it's cloud services that will keep my data accessible in a connected world. Google Docs has changed the way I handle a lot of my files, having this extended to music will be excellent.

Re:Not sure about the point (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085738)

I already copied my favorite tunes to my Android phone and, since I carry it with me everywhere...

I take it you don't have a very extensive music collection, if it will all fit on one single phone.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085404)

I can do the same right now with my iPhone and the Song Exporter Pro app...

Damned if you do... (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085744)

So if iOS does X and Android doesn't, it's "Apple is better because it does X." Now that Android does X it's "so what? Apple already does X." As long as Android can't do it, it's a horribly deficiency, but as soon as Android can do it it's no big deal.

I wonder if the same "logic" will apply to the app stores. Up until now every time an Android story comes up someone posts about how "it's the apps stupid" and goes on about how iOS is the best because it has the most apps. Well Android passed iOS in the number of free apps last month, and is expected to pass iOS in the total number of apps sometime later this year. When that happens will the same people who were arguing that it was the number of apps that mattered switch to some other argument? (Presumably that although iOS has less apps, its apps are better?)

Requires Flash (2, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085452)

From the system requirements [google.com] : "The latest version of Adobe Flash Player must be installed and enabled in your browser (Flash is included with Google Chrome)."

So it's going to be a non-starter for a lot of devices including of course iOS devices but a lot of others too. So right of the bat they go out of their way to alienate literally millions of potential users. Not a good way to dive into a market that has a lot of big players going into it including Amazon and potentially Apple who are rumored, as they always are, to be working on something similar.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085540)

I wouldn't be too alarmed. I'm sure an iOS App will be forthcoming to replace any lost Flash functionality. If not they risk losing the entire block of iOS users when Apple releases its own cloud service.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085848)

... unless Apple decides not to approve the app.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085582)

Err... seeing as on android they have a dedicated app (from the same page you linked to) I don't think flash is how they plan to target mobile.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085692)

Yes, but for now the only way to access the service is to have a supported Android device or a Flash-enabled device. It's odd that a web company like Google would deliberately limit its service like that when using pure HTML5 technologies would have provided a much larger potential audience, including mobile devices for which there might not be any apps developed. Amazon's Cloud Player [pcworld.com] for example does work on iOS devices and that's their largest competitor for now.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085726)

Considering that one can make an app in flash and use AIR to deliver apps for iOS, Android and Blackberry, I'm sure it's only a matter of days until such apps will pop up in the app stores.

Re:Requires Flash (1)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085728)

iOS Serisouly??! You think Apple wants(will let) you to look at or listen to content that they are not getting 30% of??!?! No way will google be able to build an app for iOS that apple will approve of since all your going to be doing is looking/listening to content that you should have gotten from iTunes anyways..

Re:Requires Flash (1)

dhermann (648219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085878)

So it's going to be a non-starter for a lot of devices including of course iOS devices

Exactly.

Not a good way to dive into a market that has a lot of big players going into it including Amazon and potentially Apple who are rumored, as they always are, to be working on something similar.

You mean exactly how they entered the market with their search engine? Have you visited Altavista lately?

Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085458)

If I'm missing something, please let me know because I just don't get this.

Google has launched a service that is controversial because it lets people store music they already own and then access it again? What possible "licensing" is there to discuss with the record companies? How is this even a "service"...it sounds like "storage" to me.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085500)

this is less a "music service" and more a "music catalog app/player". it seems as controversial as chilled milk.

countdown to launch of generic disarmament service (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085474)

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

world wide disarmament is taking place based on the pure intentions of the
majority of the planet's chosen to be depopulated, population. as the
biblical fiction based chosen ones have only one ability, which is
destruction for personal gain, they just don't fit in with all the new
life extending stuff that's we're being advised to ignore. life likes to
continue, advance etc... deception & death appear to have similar
ambitions. with try terror first tuesday upon us, wouldn't this be a great
time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political
leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the
teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to
describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they
do advise that it's happening again.

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair,
please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID,
which are always changing, you butthead

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

This is incredibly offtopic, but... (1, Offtopic)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085508)

...What happened to Slashdot? The comments look... tiny! It no longer takes a fortnight just to load the comments, it looks a million times better, and it looks simpler to use as well!

2011: The year of Duke Nukem Forever, GNOME 3, and an actually sensible Slashdot comments system? Am I dreaming? Somebody pinch me!

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085608)

But they still have the stupid bug where when you click in an expanded comment, it expands one of the ancestor comments.

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085620)

Sadly not fully sensible: when viewing only a single comment, any click on a comment opens up the previously collapsed parent, and this goes on until all comments are expanded. Incredibly annoying...

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (2)

six11 (579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085718)

+1

I'm not sure what interaction benefit the 'click to open parent' gives. If you click a link on an already visible post, it may or may not follow the link. Or it might do some silly un-collapsing thing.

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085820)

It's not may or may not, it's definitely 'not follow link'. If I want to see the parent, I'll click on the header, thank you very much.

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085656)

I'm sure it will be fixed in a couple of weeks.

Re:This is incredibly offtopic, but... (1)

SpaceAmoeba (1159183) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085780)

Sadly, it will all be lost in 2012...

Free storage! (1)

saikou (211301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085538)

Patiently awaiting a clever hack that will allow storing any data there instead of just music.
Documents in MP3 wrapper? 50Gb free storage anywhere? Sweet :)

Re:Free storage! (1)

Morris Thorpe (762715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085672)

Google already offers storage at 20GB for $5/yr; 80GB for $20.
Is it really worth the trouble?

Re:Free storage! (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085686)

I'd be surprised if it actually stores the file you upload to it. Or if you even upload it (I haven't RTFA). Otherwise they would have so much data to store and duplicate files for the same song. I suppose Google can afford it.

I would design it so that it merely identifies the song (locally or remotely) and then adds a standard version of that song to your account. No need to store anything. Everyone uses the same file on the Google server. That's probably how Spotify works when you add your MP3s.

Re:Free storage! (3, Funny)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085742)

Unfortunately, wrapping the brainfuck implementation of DoomII into an mp3 produces a dark eldritch chant that, upon playing in a dark room under a full moon, summons Cthulhu and ushers in an age of despair for 100 years. Plus or minus some if you use a bit rate less then 128.

Google has a ticket open.

Only available in the United States (1)

cdrnet (1582149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085542)

"We're sorry. Music Beta is currently only available in the United States"

Just like Amazon and all the others. Of course, nothing else was to be expected...

This can only mean one thing (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085544)

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.

Re:This can only mean one thing (2)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085650)

Last time I checked, Amazon launched this service first. If you want to give credit, give it to Amazon.

As a musician, I want my music on this service now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085612)

Who do I speak to to get my music on this service? It's CC BY-NC-ND anyway, but I'd love to be able to reach more people.

Simplify Media (1)

Ranganana (919833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085668)

So HERE is Simplify Media, suberb program while is lasted! Now who can get me a invite for the living beings outside the US of A?

The Google Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085688)

Will they use tags instead?

Liability Tranfered with EULA (2)

Kagato (116051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085736)

If you look at the Amazon EULA it squarely transfers the liability to the customer. One would assume Google would do the same thing. The customer attests they have the legal right to store and stream the music in "teh Cloud".

Self accusation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085822)

So they want me to declare how many MP3 people illegally downloaded from the net? I may sounds trollish but some those files might have been watermarked by their right holders. Sorry if I won't use that service.

Steam or BNet 2.0 (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085850)

So you want me to put my mp3s(I hope) in the cloud. Will you provide useful features beyond a simple store, like automatic synching to my phone and PC? Will you let me use multiple accounts from anywhere like Steam, or will you lock it down to a single account per computer like BNet? Will you let me add my own files to my library like Steam or will it be limited to purchased offerings from Google like BNet?

Basically will you create something new and dangerous to the old publishers that will corner the marketshare, or will you create an also ran with the features that are safe for publisher control to be maintained?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?