Here is how the new Amazon Cloud service works.......
You get 5 gigs of free storage, more (20 gig) if you buy from Amazon. What you purchase from Amazon doesn't count toward your gig storage. This cloud allows you to access your files from your devices without physically storing them on those devices.
But the fine print says, amazon can access your files, use your files, and if your files are lost or damaged, amazon isn't responsible.
Secondly, they dont know if this cloud service will require license from the record labels. Sony isn't happy with Amazon.
Read
here about why Amazon went first and Goole and Apple are waiting......
I read that whole thing again last night and what I truly don't see, or can't figure out is why anyone would spend the time uploading 5 to 25gb of their own stuff to be sitting on some server that they don't own or control.
"for students abroad". Huh? A 20gb mp3 player is nothing and if they don't/can't carry their full CD collection with them, I'm quite sure many of these people would just put as much as they could on their mp3 players and be done with it. Then look at what Amazon is truly offering (for a price of course) which is 5gb of storage. This just seems truly silly. For a "student abroad" to have access to high-speed internet so they can DL music from some 'cloud' storage device is probably a lot more unlikely than they have an mp3 player with more than that storage available to them and they don't ever need to DL squat.
However, what are the chances that Amazon could possibly be in cahoots with the record industry? The conspiracy theorist in me can almost see them using this as some form of checking on the consumers. If people are uploading all of their music with the exact same bitrates, filenaming schema, mp3 tags, etc.... they probably won't raise as many eyebrows on the server end as if someone who uploads songs similar to the following:
Beatles - Let It Be.mp3
whole lotta love - Led zeppelin.mp3
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 04 - Time.mp3
wont_get_fooled_again_the_who.mp3
Acdc whole lotta rosie (ripgroup).mp3
etc etc.. you get the point (hopefully). That's just taking filenames into consideration, not including different bitrates.
I think that this would raise MAJOR red flags. Do you think that Amazon would turn a blind eye, especially since the fine print that Magic pointed out is that they can (and most likely will) be accessing your files. Who's to stop them from pointing this stuff out to the record labels to file/press charges?
Sure if they did that, they'd catch some grief and bad publicity, however in doing so, perhaps they could have a behind-the-scenes deal with these record companies to be able to purchase and sell their CDs, DVDs, digital downloads of songs, etc at a cheaper price than before. We scratch your back, you scratch ours.
I dunno, I'm just touching on a couple of things without diving way into it, just to see what some of you think.
