Google Music may see more delays: talks with labels "going backwards"

By on April 15, 2011, 3:01 PM
Google Music, a download music store that would include à-la-carte purchases as well as a subscription component, has been in the works for over a year. Most of that time has been spent discussing a deal with top publishers and the four largest record labels, but the latest information suggests there has been little progress, according to All Things Digital.
Google's negotiations with the big music labels are "broken," says a source familiar with the search giant’s thinking: "There's definitely a problem with the Google music conversations." Another industry source says Google’s top executives are reconsidering their music plans altogether. "They've gone backwards," I'm told.

Some label executives are unaware of this new development, saying they thought negotiations were progressing smoothly and that they felt confident they would strike deals with Google soon. Others contend that Google has changed its terms in the past few weeks and that has held up negotiations.

This news follows information from last month that Google employees had begun testing Google Music internally, suggesting that the service was almost ready. This may still be true, but if the search giant can't get the music labels onboard, it's going to have a very difficult time offering something competitive to Apple's iTunes.

All this news is still technically conjecture and speculation based on sources close to the company and the music industry. Google has still not announced its music initiative publicly, though many expect it to show off at least a sneak peek next month at its Google I/O 2011 conference, which is taking place on May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011.

A rumor from September 2010 originally suggested Google Music would allow consumers to purchase music by the track or album, and also pay $25 per year to store songs in the cloud. Amazon already beat Google to the punch on the latter when it launched Cloud Drive last month.




User Comments: 5

Got something to say? Post a comment
captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

In most of these Google market grab / invasion attempts, it almost seems that Google has the mind set that they're going to be doing you a big favor by violating your copyrights. So, you just better let them.

Well, then there's "Street View", where they think they're doing you a favor by invading your privacy. That's something different...(?) Um, sort of, but not really.

killeriii said:

what's invasive about street view? it's no more than anyone driving down your street sees.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

what's invasive about street view? it's no more than anyone driving down your street sees.
Gee,IDK, let's ask the Germans, shall we? [link]

Then there's the whole issue of needing a property release to use your building's photograph in a commercial venture.

A person's property has the same rights as the person, regarding payment and permission to use an image without permission. The exception is news, and news crews usually ask anyway. "Street View" isn't news, as you pointed out, and therefore isn't granted exception.

Invite them over to your place. They can photograph it twice, once for you, and the second time to save them a trip to my place.

killeriii said:

"Gee,IDK, let's ask the Germans, shall we?"

The Germans? really? remember the wall?

plus the government ok'd it anyway. googles being nice and withdrawing.

"A person's property has the same rights as the person, regarding payment and permission to use an image without permission."

paparazzis "invade" peoples privacy all the time, and it's usually perfectly legal. even though the ones having their picture taken don't give permission.

you can call that "news" if you want, but i don't.

you could even call what googles doing as "news"

"Invite them over to your place.They can photograph it twice"

why would i care? 100's of people see my place all the time when they walk/drive/bike by.

i personally support a new music download service that can compete with itunes.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

The Germans? really? remember the wall?
You have a very limited grasp of what you're talking about. My recollections of the Berlin wall are that the Russians built it, and were then responsible for its removal. This under the Gorbachev and Regan "presidencies"

paparazzis "invade" peoples privacy all the time, and it's usually perfectly legal. even though the ones having their picture taken don't give permission.

you can call that "news" if you want, but i don't.

So because they, "get away with it", are you suggesting that makes it moral and or legal?

Invite them over to your place. They can photograph it twice, once for you, and the second time to save them a trip to my place.
And then..........,

why would i care? 100's of people see my place all the time when they walk/drive/bike by.
Count me among the not there and not intrested in being there. However, if a movie crew put up shop directly in front of your door, you'd most likely be there with your hand out expecting payment.

i personally support a new music download service that can compete with itunes.
Good for you, I applaud you for that. My original comment addressed itself to Google's business model that seems to be under the impression that Google's copyright infringement is a favor being done to the copyright holder(s). Which is why , (most likely), that these talks have stalled in the first place. However, now that Google has you on board, who knows if that will turn the tide in their favor. Besides, who's going to fill the void left by the departure of, "Limewire", and, "The Pirate Bay", if not Google.

Now, I'm willing to argue with you all day. What I'm not willing to do is argue over stupid things like who was responsible for the Berlin Wall. The Wall was true, constructed by "Germans", but at the behest of the occupying Russian forces. Ronald Regan's famous remark, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down the wall", was certainly not directed at any known German official. And then the wall came down,

Also, I always enjoy being quoted, for one reason or another, for better or worse. What is annoying is trying to read statement and response postings, that don't include the quote originator's remarks in the appropriate boxes. So, if you're going to do a line item quoting of me, then do me the courtesy of taking the time to learn how to do it correctly.

"killerii"!
My, my, what an absolutely adorable faux latinization of "killer". It could read like a species name, "Homo Sapiens, "Killerii"!

(In accepted biological naming conventions, the name coming after a species, (species in this case being, "Sapiens", refers to a subspecies or cultivar)).

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.