Amazon: "We don't need music licenses for Cloud Player"

Amazon says they do not need specific licenses to operate their new Cloud Player service, which was introduced last Tuesday. Previously, we reported on this weblog that Amazon has a head start in the music streaming services department relative to their competitors Google and Apple. The rapid development of the Cloud Player now seems to be partly enabled by the choice not to make licensing arrangements for this new service. Competitors Google and Apple, that are also developing similar services, are currently negotiating with the recording music industry about licensing agreements for the use of copyright protected music in their streaming services. Unsurprisingly, record labels are appalled by Amazons view of the case.

Amazon claims that they are not deliberately offending record companies, but that they simply don’t need additional licenses to offer their new service. According to Amazon, the Amazon Cloud Player is comparable to a normal hard drive that consumers have at home. Cloud Player is simply an application that enables people to store files that they have previously purchased –or produced themselves- on a remote and virtual “hard disk drive” and use whenever they want. That is, according to Amazon, different from a streaming service like, for example, Spotify. "We do not need a license to store music in the cloud," said an Amazon spokesman to weblog Ars Technica.

If we follow this Amazon logic, it does seem unfounded to require an additional license for the cloud service if the service is only about storing and accessing files that a user already owns. Indeed, if we assume that consumers have obtained or produced the files legally and upload them to a personal account in the cloud, that is similar to storing and viewing your own files on your own computer. Accessing these files on the “cloud account” is not an autonomous publication or reproduction for the purposes of copyright law. This could be an important legal difference between a streaming service and a cloud storage service. When using a streaming service, the consumer does not buy or own the footage, he pays the streaming company to display the requested footage. For this, specific licenses are required.

Record label Sony Music has reacted with surprise to Amazons announcement. "We hope we can still conclude a licensing agreement, but we keep all legal options at hand," said a spokeswoman. Although Amazons approach has been provocative towards record companies, this passively aggressive comment from Sony is also inciting. Of course they would like to sell an additional license, but it is doubtful whether this is necessary. Nonetheless, it is understandable that record companies are protesting against this state of affairs. It probably feels like someone else is running away with their merchandise. Furthermore, a significant part of what the average consumer stores on his computer is in fact illegally downloaded or copied material. However, it is also unjust to start from a legal presumption that copyright compensations are due for all uploaded files.

The question whether Amazon needs additional music licenses for their brand new Cloud Player is a very compelling one and will probably end up being answered in court.

Reference: Ars Technica