While probably the right move (no need to take responsibility for an app that is going to anger labels when your platform allows sideload), it is funny to see Google kicking out a company that is following the YouTube playbook word for word.
Doesn't this indicate that Google admits potential culpability and concedes that it is their responsibility to police what goes into their app store?
Seems a better approach would have been to shrug their shoulders and argue that the Android app store is merely an open conduit, not their curated set of apps.
The implication is that they concede responsibility for whatever they don't remove.
I'm not sure I agree. Just because Google is asserting the right to remove apps from the store (e.g. to keep strategic partners from flipping out) doesn't mean that they're conceding that they're under any obligation to do so.
Maybe not, but it seems like the kind of crack in the door a lawyer might jump at next time someone complains that an app offends them, or is copying their idea, or whatever.
Exactly, I guess they don't want to get in the middle of it. The disadvantages of building on someone else's platform, I suppose.
As the parent stated, that is youtube starting.
And now they also have to protect amazon mp3 investment on them.
Seems weird, but I bet theres lots of politics between google and amazon over android
Google shopping is not about google selling stuff... and guess who's usually on top
Either way, I'm still sure I'm not allowed to uninstall amazon mp3 app from my android super open and free dev phone
They do have some precedent here, consider the google books ebookstore: http://books.google.com/ebooks
Overall though, I think the ability to have your users install your app even if you get kicked off of the market is a fundamental advantage that Android has. It's going to be a detriment if you're a paid app, but if you're ad-supported, being kicked off the Market is not nearly as big of an issue. You just need to solve the publicity/discoverability issue.
That said, if the major music rights holders would just license to them from the start at affordable rates they wouldn't need to violate copyright so I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
TL;DR They got EMI (following a lawsuit), a few prominent indies like Merge, and 99% nobodies. Alongside a still in process suit from Universal Music Group.