Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
iPhone Newsforums, a part of the
Amazon offers a music-in-the-cloud service. An app developer for the Apple App Store, Interactive Innovative Solutions (IIS), was forced to remove their aMusic app because of legal problems with the...
11-01-2011, 06:43 PM #1
App Developer Asked to Remove Amazon Cloud Music App
Amazon offers a music-in-the-cloud service.
An app developer for the Apple App Store, Interactive Innovative Solutions (IIS), was forced to remove their aMusic app because of legal problems with the company and industry. The app was a violation to the music industry apparently. What it enabled users to do was stream music off of their Amazon cloud account to any iDevice. The app functioned similarly to Spotify, where you can stream music in the online library as if it were in your iPod library. The only difference between this and Spotify is that you only would have been able to stream the music that you owned. Where in Spotify you can stream anything (with a monthly fee, that is).
The music industry's beef seems to be with the streaming. They hate the idea that users can freely stream music without being able to make money on it. With services like iCloud, you cannot stream your music, all you can do is store it and download your purchases to listen to them. Even iTunes Match doesn't allow you to stream your content, all you can do is download music that you recently paid for when buying a CD, even then there's a fee. So you end up paying for the music more than once which I think to be ludicrous.
Interactive Innovative Solutions (IIS) also made a similar app for Google's music service known as gMusic. This one however has not been soiled. That doesn't mean that it won't be, though. Google and Amazon appeared to side with James Clancey, the maker of the aMusic app, in that the apps didn't require any extra licensing to be existent and that users could stream their own music. Of course, however, the music industry felt differently.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the music industry wanting the app gone went beyond streaming. It seems a little far-fetched that they would get angry over users streaming music that they paid for on their own devices. It seems that the problem has to do with the fact that users can actually host their music to any iDevice using the app. That being the case, it kind of is unethical sharing – but nonetheless, paid for and not stolen or pirated.
aMusic is said to be removed only temporarily until the music industry makes up their mind, explained James Clancey, the maker of the app. Hopefully the industry clears up all of their rules which are based on greed and fallacy. The RIAA is a big one, they like to make a penny off of everything that is said and done and try to put fences around media to keep people from having any kind of freedom with their media. So, we will wait and see what is to become of these indecisive companies.
Last edited by Anthony Bouchard; 11-02-2011 at 08:00 AM.
11-01-2011, 06:48 PM #2
What's wrong with streaming the music you own? I understand it may have legal implications against it, but I don't understand why.
11-01-2011, 06:49 PM #3
11-01-2011, 06:55 PM #4
So how are the Google Music apps staying alive (there are two of them on the appstore that I have found)? Google Music sounds like it is the same service as this...
11-01-2011, 07:39 PM #5
Dangit it's gone
11-01-2011, 08:49 PM #6
11-01-2011, 09:58 PM #7
Boy, they are still getting greedy... I also think it's ridiculous that recording artist's great-great grand kids are still collecting royalties from their ancestors work. After you know, 50 years or so, shouldn't it become public domain? Just my thought...
11-01-2011, 11:58 PM #8
Yeah, this is pretty dumb. It's kind of interesting how you can own something - it's yours - but still have some dude in a suit somewhere that can tell you what to do with your property. This isn't the government, mind you, it's a privately owned company with legal rights to your possessions, after you've given them money for it. There aren't words strong enough to describe how infuriating that is. Apparently in the future noting will belong to you, it will simply be rented.
11-02-2011, 04:36 AM #9
You don't own the music, you buy the license to play that single copy of music per single device, so if you are playing on multiple devices you need 1 license per copy of music per single device, why do you complain about music but (so long as you are fully abiding by the law, which seems to be your complaint about what the music industry is doing) happily buy single copies of software for each and every computer in your possession?
Last edited by lukeyb; 11-02-2011 at 04:40 AM.
11-02-2011, 04:36 AM #10
Isn't it with not which (which a monthly payment that is)
11-02-2011, 09:44 AM #11
Let's be real here. We can mince words about licenses and agreements, but don't they realize that they are going after the people that are actually agreeing, or rather paying, for this crap? I've never figured out how sound can be sold, and with fancy words in a 500 page document to boot. Perhaps this is why so many people simply download the music from "other" sources for free. There will come a time when everything is in the cloud, and we all only own licenses to access it. What I don't understand is how someone can tell you that you bought that blender, but you can only use it at your house. If we catch you with that blender at the neighbors, we will charge you $250,000 for each time you have used it and/or have lent it to a friend to use. By the way, to whom are these settlements paid to? I would not be surprised if the artist sees none of it.Music should be about the music. I totally agree that artists should be paid, but come on. If someone digs your music enough, then they will buy it. If they like it a lot, then they may go to your concert. To the record companies (and Lars Ulrich ), that isn't enough. They are scared to death of computers and the thought that their 2 hits + 10 fillers model is not going to work anymore. They should be, since they are making much less selling singles than they used to selling full albums. Users are now able to buy that one song that they like because they were able to hear the rest of the album (filler) and decide that it was crap. I'm sorry for such a long rant, but this is getting old. I'd like to see who exactly is hurting from people downloading music. I would love to see a documentary that shows this. I would gladly purchase music if it was mine, had no DRM, and certainly no other strings attached- I honestly would. Artists should sell their music directly through their website. Social networking will spread the word if their stuff is good, and they would make money. Look at Justin Beaver and Trailer Swift, they became popular before the record labels got to them, so could other artists. //rantBTW: Computer software is different. In many cases there is a single developer making these apps as a side job, and I pay for everything that I install on my computer and iOS devices. Apples and Oranges there ferreal.
11-02-2011, 12:08 PM #12
11-02-2011, 04:16 PM #13
I see a solution. CYDIA !
11-03-2011, 02:19 PM #14
The only real solution is to keep an eye out for stuff like "amusic" and grab it instantly, before it's pulled. They can stop it from being sold- but they can't stop it from being used. I think.