3 ms·

Your entire music library doesn't have to live on your device. Just stream it right from GM or cache the albums you want to listen too.

• jacquesm 11y ago
  What really gets me is that some scrappy start-up tried to launch a service like that in the 00's and got totally burned by the labels because it was not 'fair use' but now google does it it is ok.
  • m3rc 11y ago
    Yeah, shit like that really does suck. At the very least, we get that kind of service now.
  • danielweber 11y ago
    I believe that Apple and Google got permission from the labels to do it.
    • jacquesm 11y ago
      Fair use shouldn't require permission.
      • danielweber 11y ago
        Saying it was fair use is begging the question. It's not obvious that showing I own a CD at one point means I get online access to files ripped off an equivalent CD forever.
        • jacquesm 11y ago
          Not really. It required you to have the files to be allowed to stream them back to yourself, the most essential functionality was de-duplication + streaming of content that you already had while you were on the move. And if you own a CD at some point nothing stops you from ripping it and selling the original (that's still illegal, but you could do it) so it's impossible to check. I don't see why google should get a free pass on this, it seems to have to do with size rather than with the technology or the law.
  • extra88 11y ago
    I think you're thinking of my.mp3.com. They bought a bunch of CDs, ripped them, customers used a desktop application to "fingerprint" a CD they had that would grant them access to the mp3s the company created. They lost in the court because by ripping the CDs they bought, they were offering a service based on copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holders. While the opportunities for abuse with the "fingerprinting" scheme are obvious, that's not what got them in trouble. There were then and are now music "locker" systems where every track you can play is from a file you created and uploaded and only your account can access. That's what Google Music is doing (for music you add, not the subscription service or tracks you buy in their store). In so doing you may have violated some copyrights but the operators of the locker system played not part in it. And if they act upon DMCA takedown notices (assuming they operate in the U.S.), they're protected from prosecution under the Safe Harbor provisions of the law. It's inefficient for such locker systems to have X copies of the same song, one for each person who uploaded it, but I assume more modern storage systems can use lower level deduplication to reduced the space needed while still presenting each user with their "own" copy.
    • jacquesm 11y ago
      That may very well be the one. I'm a bit hazy on the details because this happened right at the moment camarades.com took off and I had a lot on my plate at the time.