No more than storing your legally-archived CDs on <insert cloud storage service>, I would imagine.
IANAL, of course, but intuitively there shouldn't be any issues as long as the songs aren't made available to anyone other than the user who uploaded it.
There was a startup a while ago called mp3.com[1], their model was:
1. put your CD in your computer
2. our website recognizes the CD
3. we grant you listening access to songs on that CD (without actually ripping/uploading)
They got sued and lost:
>Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in the case UMG v. MP3.com, ruled in favor of the record labels against MP3.com and the service on the copyright law provision of "making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner."
That's interesting, although one of the comments in this thread mentioned Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes [1], a similar case tried in the same court 10 years later.
MP3Tunes 'won' in principle but they were liable for ignoring DMCA takedown notices and seeding the service with unauthorized copies of music.
> First, it established DMCA safe harbor protection for online locker services, potentially granting them "broad immunity from copyright liability". Second, it endorsed data deduplication, which allows cloud music services to more efficiently allocate storage and reduce the amount of space needed per user.
I would be curious to know why the rulings were different. If anything it seems like MP3.com provided stronger guarantees that their users legally owned the songs by requiring them to insert a CD.
No more than storing your legally-archived CDs on <insert cloud storage service>, I would imagine.
IANAL, of course, but intuitively there shouldn't be any issues as long as the songs aren't made available to anyone other than the user who uploaded it.