Legality of music locker services (like google play)

[SenorBeef]

So google play has a subscription music service that works a lot like spotify, apple music, etc. where you pay monthly to have access to a huge catalog of music.

They also offer a free “music locker” service that can be used independently of the streaming service. What it means is that you can upload up to 50,000 of your own songs and have them available to stream on any device.

Other well-known companies provide something similar - amazon gives you 250 stored songs for free and tens of thousands if you have a subscription, apple performs a music locker service for a subscription fee.

And as I understand it, before it actually uploads a song to google’s servers, it checks the song against its own database. So if you have a certain album, and that album is already on their streaming service, it’s added to your account as an owned album, totally legit, as if you bought it from them. Only if it can’t find a match for your music does it actually upload the file. This is obviously far more practical - there’s no point in having millions of users have their own uploaded copies of the same song stored across google’s servers when you can simply have them all able to access the official version of the song google keeps on their servers for streaming.

Now my question is: given how litigious the RIAA, how did this service manage to get off the ground? As far as I can tell, there’s no authentication that the things you’re uploading came from some sort of legally purchased source. Could someone with a pirated music collection upload it to google and basically have it “scrubbed” in a similar way to laundering money to give them official/legitimate ownership of that music? Now regardless of how you acquired that album, it’s on your google play account, just as legitimately as if you bought it. And potentially at a higher quality than your pirated version of the file. Now you can stream it to any of your devices and keep it in the future.

Now you can make the argument that if the person already has the file, they’re not gaining anything new by “officially” owning it, but the RIAA has sued people into dust for far less. This seems like exactly the sort of thing the music industry would squash in their highly motivated attack on music piracy.

And how does google provide this service for free? What do they get out of it? It seems very hard to believe that the music owners would give them a contract that says they can add any music to any user’s account as long as the user has some version of that song from any source, illicit or legitimate.

So, I guess, what’s the catch? Why would the music owners allow this? Why wouldn’t the RIAA crush this? What does google get out of providing this service for free?

[The_Niply_Elder]

IANALawyer, but probably the uploading of the song does not prove legal ownership. The RIAA would still need to prove that a song was illegally download to your IP address in order to sue you.

[SenorBeef]

I’m not saying the RIAA should sue someone uploading songs, what I’m asking is how google is basically able to grant legitimate ownership of a song without a sale. Clearly they’re not paying every time they do this or they couldn’t offer it for free. I don’t know why the RIAA or whoever does this contract would allow them to grant countless millions of song licenses to people who can’t prove they own the song.

[Crazyhorse]

@SenorBeef

And as I understand it, before it actually uploads a song to google’s servers, it checks the song against its own database. So if you have a certain album, and that album is already on their streaming service, it’s added to your account as an owned album, totally legit, as if you bought it from them. Only if it can’t find a match for your music does it actually upload the file. This is obviously far more practical - there’s no point in having millions of users have their own uploaded copies of the same song stored across google’s servers when you can simply have them all able to access the official version of the song google keeps on their servers for streaming.

I think that your understanding of this point is incorrect.
From theGoogle Play terms of service:

Use of Music Locker Services. By storing Music Products and Stored Content in Music Storage, you are storing a unique copy of such content and requesting Google to retain it on your behalf and to make it accessible to you through your Google account. By using the Music Locker Services, you are requesting that Google make all of the necessary functions and features of the Music Locker Services available to you in order to facilitate your use of Music Products and Stored Content. Additionally, by accessing or using Music Products and Stored Content through the Music Software, you are initiating and performing the corresponding functions on Google’s servers, together with any related steps necessary to achieve them, through the Music Locker Services. You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps at your direction to provide you with the Music Locker Services, may (a) transmit Music Products and Stored Content over various networks and in various media and (b) make such changes to Music Products and Stored Content as are necessary to conform and adapt it to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You confirm and warrant to Google that you have the necessary rights to store in Music Storage any Stored Content that you direct Google to upload or store in Music Storage, and to instruct Google to perform the actions described in this section.

As I understand it, that distinction is key to their ability to do this legally under the safe harbor laws for hosting services. They are hosting a unique copy of the same song for every user who uploads it. It’s not like they are low on storage space.

[Chunkylord]

It’s definitely inefficient, but I’m sure Google could easily get away with storing a unique copy of each user uploaded track, especially if it saves them from potential legal trouble. These are the same guys that own YouTube, after all.

Sent from my ZUK Z2121 using Tapatalk

[Crazyhorse]

Yeah this service alone allows each song to be up to 300MB. With 50,000 songs that’s a theoretical 15TB of free storage space for music, per user. They have some massive storage capacity.

The idea in the OP is way more efficient but that is exactly what sunk early pioneers in the music locker business like mp3.com, who were way ahead of their time.

[Tabby_Cat]

@SenorBeef

And as I understand it, before it actually uploads a song to google’s servers, it checks the song against its own database. So if you have a certain album, and that album is already on their streaming service, it’s added to your account as an owned album, totally legit, as if you bought it from them. Only if it can’t find a match for your music does it actually upload the file. This is obviously far more practical - there’s no point in having millions of users have their own uploaded copies of the same song stored across google’s servers when you can simply have them all able to access the official version of the song google keeps on their servers for streaming.

Quoting the part that people seem to be missing. It’s probably part of a licencing deal, given that Google or Apple already have a streaming deal in place with the music publishers, it only makes sense to roll in at the same time this “upload check and add stream” deal. After all music publishers would rather much you pay monthly to stream than buy albums just once, and if you’re used to streaming rather than storing music on your iPhone, you might switch to a paid subscription service.

**Outside of the subscription service, **Apple Music lets its users match up to 100,000 songs from their iTunes library (or libraries) to the DRM-free iTunes Store catalog; these tracks can then be streamed or downloaded to up to ten of your other devices. (If Apple Music can’t match a track to a song in the iTunes catalog, it’ll manually upload it, instead.)

Apple Music vs iTunes Match: What's the difference?

[Crazyhorse]

@Tabby_Cat

Quoting the part that people seem to be missing. It’s probably part of a licencing deal, given that Google or Apple already have a streaming deal in place with the music publishers, it only makes sense to roll in at the same time this “upload check and add stream” deal. After all music publishers would rather much you pay monthly to stream than buy albums just once, and if you’re used to streaming rather than storing music on your iPhone, you might switch to a paid subscription service.
Apple Music vs iTunes Match: What's the difference? | iMore

Read the cite I provided. Apple has a totally different approach to this than Google does. Google has no deal, so they have to keep redundant copies of the uploaded content because they are just providing a hosting service to their customers. Apple pays licensing fees to do their version and so almost certainly doesn’t store redundant copies in each user’s account.

Apple has signed deals that should avoid legal trouble with the major labels, but they don’t get Apple completely out of the woods. As we’ve reported, not every recording company is jumping on the iCloud bandwagon. Presumably, customers will demand that all of their songs be synced with iCloud regardless of whether Apple has signed a deal with their copyright holders. So Apple will have to choose between shipping an inferior product or risking lawsuits from smaller labels that choose not to sign up for iCloud. If it does the latter, then even Apple will have a (small) stake in MP3tunes’ success. Update: As we’ve previously reported, (but this author overlooked) if a song isn’t in Apple’s Match catalog, iTunes will upload the user’s copy of the song. So Apple does, in fact, have a stake in the MP3tunes case.

Google has taken the much larger risk of creating a music service without paying the labels a dime. But its strategy is conservative in every other respect. The company wouldn’t talk to Ars on the record, instead directing us to its Terms of Service, which state that “you are directing Google to store a unique copy of Your Music on your behalf.” This suggests that Google will be making millions of redundant copies of users’ music in order to strengthen its claim to the Cablevision defense.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@SenorBeef

Now my question is: given how litigious the RIAA, how did this service manage to get off the ground?
[snip]
So, I guess, what’s the catch? Why would the music owners allow this? Why wouldn’t the RIAA crush this? What does google get out of providing this service for free?

One thing to realize is that while the RIAA has good lawyers, the law is a much more effective tool against upstarts than massive companies.

Google had $89 billion in revenue in 2016. Amazon had 136 billion. The entire recorded industry as a whole had about $8 billion.

If Larry and Sergei or Jeff Bezos decide that this kind of thing is in Google/Amazon’s long-term strategic interest because it makes customers 3% more likely to get locked in to a platform that they’ll use for years (decades? lifetimes??), damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, give the guys in legal a $500 million operating budget and tell them we’ll buy 'em each their own island if the Supreme Court rules in our favor.

I’m not saying that bankroll is the only thing that matters in a legal fight, but it certainly matters some. And it’s much better to go after a startup that’s going to fold and pay out a nice settlement than it is to go up against a well-funded competitor who might fight you to an unpleasant precedent.

@Crazyhorse

As I understand it, that distinction is key to their ability to do this legally under the safe harbor laws for hosting services. They are hosting a unique copy of the same song for every user who uploads it. It’s not like they are low on storage space.

Looks like that’s true. Here’s an article that goes into the legal rationale for doing so.

@Crazyhorse

Yeah this service alone allows each song to be up to 300MB. With 50,000 songs that’s a theoretical 15TB of free storage space for music, per user. They have some massive storage capacity.

Realistically, the vast majority of people don’t have that much music, so they can offer a high cap without it mattering much.