Google Bungles Music Beta Launch, Leaves Labels Angry | Hacker News Reader

Google Bungles Music Beta Launch, Leaves Labels Angry

fastcompany.com

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.

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.

Google Music is effectively a file locker. File lockers are not illegal.

Then again, the labels shut down mp3.com's music locker 10 years ago.

My.mp3.com did not at all work like what Google is doing.

Looking only at experience the end user is having, the difference is minimal to non-existent but that’s not what the law cares about.

(My personal opinion is that what my.mp3.com was doing should be legal just as what Google is doing is clearly legal. The distinction the law is making in that respect doesn’t make any practical sense.)

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.

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!

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com