Ever since I read (and posted) about the launch of Amazon's new Cloud Drive and Cloud Player services, I've been anticipating the reaction by the major music labels. Based on past experiences, I assume it will be negative.

Historically, the big music companies—EMI, Universal and Sony—haven't understood technological innovations that affect their business; in the absence of that knowledge, they've typically done everything in their power to either delay or prevent new business models from emerging. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a founding member of two online music services, Riffage.com in 1999 and StarPolish.com in 2001.)

So I'll be interested to see how the labels—and the industry's primary trade association, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)—will respond to Amazon, which launched its service without entering into a license with any music companies. After all, back in 2007, EMI sued MP3tunes.com, an early cloud-based music locker service launched by Michael Robertson, of MP3.com fame. (MP3tunes.com searches a user's computer for music files and then uploads them to a central server, where they can be accessed only by that user.) That case is still being decided.

Amazon's argument is that no license is required, since it's really offering storage, albeit in the cloud rather than on an external hard drive. And users have to upload the songs themselves, except for those purchased from Amazon, which are added to the locker automatically.

But there may be several reasons for Amazon's seemingly sudden locker-service launch. One is that the company really does believe it's on solid legal footing. Another is that by launching the service now, Amazon may have added leverage in negotiating more favorable terms from the labels. But it's also possible that Amazon jumped the gun to gain first-to-market advantage over competitors such as Apple and Google, which have been trying to negotiate licenses with the labels, an often-laborious, time-consuming process, for their own cloud-based services.

And the risk for the labels is that if they don't take some kind of action soon—either a quick licensing deal or a lawsuit—both Apple and Google may conceivably roll out their own services without any major-label music licenses.

Although the labels have so far been relatively silent, it's unlikely that they're happy. Earlier this week, a Sony Music spokeswoman was quoted as saying that the company was "disappointed" that Amazon's locker service hasn't been licensed by Sony Music. "We're hoping that they will resolve the situation by moving to a licensed model. We are keeping our legal options open," she said.

I can't imagine the labels remaining quiet for much longer. But the risk of any legal action is that the outcome isn't always what you'd imagined. In this instance, if the courts were to find for Amazon, that would set a precedent for the legality of at least some cloud-based services that don't require major-label licenses, essentially removing them from the equation. If you believe you should have ubiquitous access, across multiple devices, to the music you already purchased, then Amazon's victory will be yours, too.

What's your take on the situation?