Amazon Announces Cloud Player and Cloud Drive

[Ervserver]

free 5 GB doesn't interest me at all

[RockdaMan]

So Amazon learned that Google or Apple were going to beat them to market, and they jumped out first, but unlicensed?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Although there is an interesting legal point there.
Playing an MP3 file requires copying it from the original file into RAM, which it seems under UK copyright law constitutes an act of copying[1], and if you were not licenced to make that copy, it would indeed be copyright infringement.
However, this means that an MP3 that was not sold including a licence to make such transient copies would be impossible to use, so is it reasonably to imply such permission into a sale even if it is not explicitly stated?

The case you've quoted was for illegally copied material, where self-evidently the user does not have a licence to use the software, and hence copying it into RAM does constitute copyright infringement.

I think that any reasonable person would conclude that when you buy an MP3 file, you have a licence - either explicit or implicit - for you to make copies for the purpose of playing it. Very few people, I imagine, buy an MP3 file for the pleasure of admiring its presence in the directory listing on their disk .

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The case you've quoted was for illegally copied material, where self-evidently the user does not have a licence to use the software, and hence copying it into RAM does constitute copyright infringement.

I think that any reasonable person would conclude that when you buy an MP3 file, you have a licence - either explicit or implicit - for you to make copies for the purpose of playing it. Very few people, I imagine, buy an MP3 file for the pleasure of admiring its presence in the directory listing on their disk .

Yeah, but I think the argument is that Amazon needs a license to stream the song to you.

You have a license to play it on your own hardware. But when Amazon's hardware comes into play, they need a license.

I mean, it's sort of like giving a file to a friend, and then when you want to hear the song, you call him up and ask him to play it for you over the phone. That might be okay if you physically loaned him a cd (though it might actually qualify as a broadcast, so probably not), but if you just made a copy...

Legally, anyway. Morally, if you bought a song, you should be able to listen it to however you want.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Yeah, but I think the argument is that Amazon needs a license to stream the song to you.

You have a license to play it on your own hardware. But when Amazon's hardware comes into play, they need a license.

I mean, it's sort of like giving a file to a friend, and then when you want to hear the song, you call him up and ask him to play it for you over the phone. That might be okay if you physically loaned him a cd (though it might actually qualify as a broadcast, so probably not), but if you just made a copy...

Legally, anyway. Morally, if you bought a song, you should be able to listen it to however you want.

I see what you're saying, but is it really any different to buying a song and storing it yourself on a service like "Dropbox"?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that any reasonable person would conclude that when you buy an MP3 file, you have a licence - either explicit or implicit - for you to make copies for the purpose of playing it. Very few people, I imagine, buy an MP3 file for the pleasure of admiring its presence in the directory listing on their disk .

However you have no rights to copy beyond what are granted to you by the licence, so if you bought MP3s from somewhere which said you were limited in how you could store them, or how many devices you could play them on, you could infringe copywrite by using a cloud service like this.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

However you have no rights to copy beyond what are granted to you by the licence, so if you bought MP3s from somewhere which said you were limited in how you could store them, or how many devices you could play them on, you could infringe copywrite by using a cloud service like this.

To tie in another thread, how would you respond if under the DEA one of the music companies decided your use of this service was infringing and applied to your ISP to have your service reduced or removed? How would you prove the rights you have to your MP3 files?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To tie in another thread, how would you respond if under the DEA one of the music companies decided your use of this service was infringing and applied to your ISP to have your service reduced or removed? How would you prove the rights you have to your MP3 files?

Guilty as sin.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To tie in another thread, how would you respond if under the DEA one of the music companies decided your use of this service was infringing and applied to your ISP to have your service reduced or removed? How would you prove the rights you have to your MP3 files?

It wouldn't really matter how he responded because under the DEA he would be guilty upon accusation.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_6947326_c...p3-player.html

Presumably Itunes grants you permission to copy them to an mp3 player when you buy from there, but that permission won't extend to anything else.

It is also illegal to make your own mp3s from CD, vinyl or tape without permission from the copyright holder. (Though not something that is actively prosecuted these days).

Ah so then it's clearly not illegal as you stated.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

free 5 GB doesn't interest me at all

I'm sad for you.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To tie in another thread, how would you respond if under the DEA one of the music companies decided your use of this service was infringing and applied to your ISP to have your service reduced or removed? How would you prove the rights you have to your MP3 files?

If that was indeed the case, then I would be guilty, and in response to the warning letter that I would be sent, I would remove the infringing files from the Cloud service. That is the purpose of the warning, after all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ah so then it's clearly not illegal as you stated.

It is illegal. It's just not prosecuted.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is illegal. It's just not prosecuted.

That's not what you just said earlier.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=16

You said format conversion was illegal, copying for your own use was not.

Now I'm really confused.

P.S. my previous post was referring to the iTunes downloading not the ripping...that must be where we are diverging....

Sorry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's not what you just said earlier.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=16

You said format conversion was illegal, copying for your own use was not.

Now I'm really confused.

Format conversion (eg ripping a CD that you've bought, to your iPod) is illegal. But nobody, including the industries involved, thinks that it should be; it's really just an archaic oversight in our copyright laws. Hence it's technically illegal, but never, ever, prosecuted.