Sunday, May 29, 2011

Mfarhanonline:Google Would Have Paid More Than $100 Million to Major Labels for Licenses

Fav Tag:

Mfarhanonline Social Media News: Many music fans were disappointed by Google Music Beta , the cloud-based locker that the company released at Google I/O this year — in particular because it lacks the ability to purchase music and stream seamlessly without uploading. Now it seems Google was prepared to offer big bucks to make a more robust notion. Bloomberg Businessweek is reporting that Google was ready to shell out $100 million to the four major labels — up front — for licenses. However, those negotiations fell apart because of “the music industry’s concern that search results in Google and YouTube often point to pirated music.” We already know that Google was having issues getting the labels’ blessings. The piracy angle is new, however. It was reported that Google was fed up with the labels , particularly WMG, which was said to be suggesting that Google charge users $30 per year for the cloud service. Apparently, Google wanted users to be able to try the service for free with the first 500 tracks stored. As a result, Google launched Google Music Beta without licenses with the first 20,000 stored songs on the house, meaning that users have to upload all their music to the cloud-based locker (a lengthy process) for listening across devices. This is a much less intriguing — and much bulkier — offering than what could have transpired if Google had been able to nab those licenses. The cloud-based music business has been heating up of late. Amazon launched its Cloud Player (similar to Google’s service) recently, and we’ve been hearing reports that Apple is close to unveiling its offering — possibly called iCloud — as early as Apple's developers conference in June. Apple has reportedly scored deals with three of the four major labels , which means that its service could be far superior! to Amaz on’s or Google’s. Armed with licenses, Apple's service would scan a user’s iTunes library and match those songs on its services — no uploading required. What do you think? Were the labels right to turn down Google’s overtures? Photo courtesy of Flickr, karindalziel More About: amazon , apple , cloud , Google , google music , google-music-beta , icloud , music For more Media coverage: Follow Mfarhanonline Media on Twitter Become a Fan on Facebook Subscribe to the Media channel Download our free apps for Android , Mac , iPhone and iPad Social Media reviews series maintain by Mayya

Share and Enjoy: Print Digg Sphinn del.icio.us Facebook Mixx Google Bookmarks Blogplay Add to favorites BarraPunto Bitacoras.com BlinkList blogmarks Blogosphere News blogtercimlap connotea Current Design Float Diggita Diigo DotNetKicks DZone eKudos email Fark Faves Fleck FriendFeed FSDaily Global Grind Gwar HackerNews Haohao HealthRanker HelloTxt Hemidemi Hyves Identi.ca IndianPad Internetmedia Kirtsy laaik.it LaTafanera LinkaGoGo LinkArena LinkedIn Linkter Live Meneame MisterWong MisterWong.DE MOB MSN Reporter muti MyShare MySpace N4G Netvibes Netvouz NewsVine NuJIJ PDF Ping.fm Posterous Propeller QQ书签 Ratimarks Rec6 Reddit RSS Scoopeo Segnalo SheToldMe Simpy Slashdot Socialogs SphereIt StumbleUpon Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter Technorati ThisNext Tipd Tumblr Twitter Upnews viadeo FR Webnews.de Webride Wikio Wikio FR Wikio IT Wists Wykop Xerpi Yahoo! Bookmarks Yahoo! Buzz Yigg 豆瓣 豆瓣九点

http://www.mfarhanonline.com/2011052926182/google-would-have-paid-more-than-100-million-to-major-labels-for-licenses/

0 comments :

Popular Posts