Essentially, the Amazon Cloud Drive is a huge dumping ground for whatever pieces of data the user chooses to upload onto it; a dumping ground that is eminently accessible and easy to use, making it a far less complicated task to organise the reams of data flooding through our internet-connected devices by consolidating all that information in one place. Just imagine: you upload a picture of your favourite band onto your laptop at home; on the train you download their album via your mobile; then you are able to access the lot on a friend’s laptop later without the hassle of syncing to ultimately reach the same end: all your information in the same place. The possibilities are potentially endless.

However, it is the possibilities within my outlined scenario that are currently causing ripples of concern to spread throughout the blogosphere, as a result of the combined ire of the four major record companies (including Sony Music Entertainment and EMI). Rumours of a possible fee for users who attempt to upload music onto the Amazon Cloud Drive have been met with anger from the users of the Cloud. Fortunately in this case, rumours are exactly that. What really has the recording companies het up is the issue of licensing, and whether the current licensing that Amazon has with Sony et al truly covers the Cloud drive’s system of usage; a system that the Big Four are claiming would essentially make it a streaming device. So, although the charge won’t really be passed down to us as music consumers, it would mean grief for Amazon, as under their current licensing agreement streaming devices are strictly prohibited. At first glance then, it looks like recording companies like Sony are trying to make a quick buck on an innovative system that could revolutionise the way we store data. ‘Honestly’, most of us will ask ourselves, ‘who really cares what label you’re giving something this amazing?’ In the most simple of terms, it once again boils down to: music companies bad, cloud-users good.

However, things aren’t really that black and white. That the Amazon Cloud Drive can’t be clearly categorised as either a storage device or a streaming device poses a huge dilemma. Now, the problems associated with it being the latter encapsulate issues that have been plaguing the music industry as a whole since the earliest days of the internet, and quite possibly even before then, issues that are quite handily summed up in one word: piracy. File-sharing is the thorn in the backside of an industry that has seen a steady decrease in revenue over the years, as more and more people turn to illegal downloading and music conversion websites that take advantage of the plethora of free music available online. Although the global digital music market is estimated at a total value of $4.6 billion as of 2010, an increase of more than 1000% since 1994, over the same period the global recorded music industry (a measure of total revenues, including digital and physical) has shown a 31% decrease in profits; the $15.9 billion that was calculated as 2010’s global recorded music revenue, although a huge figure to most of us, still puts it firmly below the $30-40 billion profits reported less than a decade ago. No wonder then that the music industry is so nervous about the Cloud Drive. With both Google and Apple soon to release their own versions of the Cloud, it could possibly be yet another nail in the coffin of an industry that has found itself waning in the face of self promoted artists, independently produced singles, and a decline in the popularity of albums. With the shape of music changing at an ever increasing rate, there is the very real possibility that the traditional role of the music company could quite soon be defunct. What it really comes down to is the fact that if consumers could store their illegally download music and access it anywhere, why would they want to pay for any music at all?

Either way, companies like Sony are not going to go quietly. They are currently in the midst of a legal battle whose outcome could have huge implications for the future of the Cloud Drive. Claiming that their current licensing does not include the distribution of music via cloud, Sony is demanding that Amazon pay up or shut down. In response, quoted from an interview with director of music at Amazon, Craig Pape told The New York Times that, “We don’t need a license to store music; the functionality is the same as an external hard drive.” Whether or not his argument will persuade a judge remains to be seen, but it is clear that regardless of any future ruling, the face of music is once more changing. The only question is can the industry machine keep up.

Shaffi Batchelor