

Google Bungles Music Beta Launch, Leaves Labels Angry - waterlesscloud
http://www.fastcompany.com/1753063/behind-the-google-music-angry-record-labels-and-a-better-apple-rival

======
ugh
You know, after the labels stopped insisting on DRM I really thought that they
had learned their lesson, at least to some extent.

The functionality Google provides does not need to be negotiated with the
labels. The user is free to upload their music. Since ripped (It's legal!) and
pirated files are indistinguishable, it is not even possible for Google to
prevent users from uploading pirated music (except in a way that would cripple
the service in an unacceptable way).

Oh, and the law obviously allows Google to not have any measures in place that
bar their users from uploading pirated music.

I don't think Google needs to get in the business of selling music (many
others are and they all sell their music without DRM), they consequently also
don't need to play nice with the labels. What the labels think about their new
service is not so important.

~~~
eli
_the law obviously allows Google to not have any measures in place that bar
their users from uploading pirated music._

Didn't Limewire just lose despite making that argument? I mean, granted that
unlike Google Limewire probably was encouraging infringement, but it seems
like an awfully fine line.

~~~
ugh
What Google offers is very different from LimeWire. It doesn’t even allow
users to make their music public or share it. It’s just storage space with
some special music features. It specifically doesn’t encourage or enable users
to pirate music.

~~~
hugh3
_What Google offers is very different from LimeWire. It doesn’t even allow
users to make their music public or share it_

Is that so, though? What if people start uploading music to accounts and then
publishing the login details? Bingo bango, free google-hosted public radio
station!

~~~
cleverjake
what and what if people start sharing keys to their houses? they'd be able to
share music that way too. Why would anyone use such a convoluted way of
sharing music when they can just continue to download it the way they have
been for 10 years. Anyone that determined to share music will find other ways
of doing it.

------
T-R
This article doesn't offer any new information since the launch, and the only
support for the idea that they've bungled the launch is one negative review -
there have been several positive ones, as well.

Moreover, I have a hard time swallowing that "the bully at the table was
Google", given that the article's only support for this is the recording
industry's claim that "The discussions were confused by Google ... adjusting
how Music would actually work in ways that fundamentally changed how the
labels thought about their IP, and thus how to license it", particularly in
light of BMI's insistence that one person streaming their own music
constitutes public performance [1]. This sounds to me like the music industry
insisted on fundamentally crippling the service, and given the choice to cut
one key feature or another, Google found it in their best interest to cut the
one that makes the music industry the most money. I don't see any evidence yet
that that was the right or the wrong choice from a user's perspective.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2534850>

------
mdwrigh2
"Piracy concerns were raised because Music users may be able to upload music
they'd "stolen" to Google's servers in the same way as legally bought tunes,
and the labels wanted to prevent this and also persuade Google to unlink
piracy sites in its search pages"

Unlinking search pages and disallowing one of the core pieces of functionality
of the product sounds exactly like "unreasonable demands", at least from
Google's point of view.

------
magicalist
If it takes a year (or more) to negotiate licensing fees, if the labels are
demanding that google censor its search results in exchange for licensing, and
if Amazon is being hailed as a folk hero (in some circles) for making the same
move, it seems like the sane decision to me.

This isn't google tv; the labels' recourse is purely legal. If they want to
sue to make listening to my own music off a server a public performance[1], I
look forward to seeing that non-bungled legal action in the news. If they give
super-licensing rights to Apple, I look forward to giving more business to a
company that already has unreasonable leverage over the music industry.

It's really just too bad they bungled this.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2534850>

------
StavrosK
Too bad the title closely missed the alliterative opportunity of "Leaves
Labels Livid".

~~~
waterlesscloud
Ha. I considered it, since I had to shorten the title anyway.

------
r0s
I recently received a song file through gmail.

Strangely the mafia didn't ask for a cut, and I'm don't see how this is any
different.

------
ditojim
this is a bad story that seethes with bias for the record labels. i have been
using google music since i/o and i am very impressed. it works well and i will
continue to use it.

------
TomOfTTB
What's comical about Google's plan of action is it's exactly what they did
with GoogleTV and that blew up in their face.

For those who don't recall GoogleTV initially allowed users to view web video
(like Hulu) on their TV. Google gave users this functionality against the
wishes of the networks and the studios. So once GoogleTV was released the
networks and studios blocked their content from being viewed on it.

Putting aside whether that was right or wrong Google should at least realize
that's what happened and not treat the music industry the exact same way.

~~~
stuartmemo
I believe this is different. With Google TV they were relying on the networks
providing the content, this time they're relying on the user.

~~~
StavrosK
And it's different in exactly the best way possible, i.e. that Google learnt
from their past mistakes.

------
yanw
I'm not sure this sort of criticism is warranted for an invite only beta
product, specially that the main reason the service isn't complete yet is
because the music label cartel didn't give their blessing, so it's surprising
to see the author side with the labels in this flawed link-bait article.

------
shareme
Some background:

Anyone remember the web 1.0 music lockers that sites did?

MP3.com? and there were some others. Labels threw such a fit that forced those
startups to have one copy on server served to many once it was uploaded for a
monthly fee to satisfy labels. Same old oh you have to license from labels
excuse was used..

Help, am I remembering this right?

------
CamperBob
_But watching the lackluster launch of the service, and reading some reviews
of its performance, it almost felt like Google had rushed into it, with
lackluster results. Now it seems sure that's what happened._

Nooooooo...! Building a half-assed implementation of something cool? Not
_Google!_ Say it isn't so, Sergey!

