Here’s an example – John Doe subscribes to eMusic and a number of other subscription services and has a good job. He’s doing the responsible thing and has the subscription services all tied into his bank accounts instead of filtered through a credit card. John’s employer hits rough times and lays him off, leaving John to scramble. John’s never been laid off before, and he forgets to cancel a couple of his subscriptions. They come around after a while, and finally one hits when he’s got no money in his account because he’s a day late in depositing his unemployment check. John’s bank hammers him for $20-40 of insufficient funds fees, and he’s suddenly in worse shape than he would have been.

As someone who’s been laid off before the subscription model took over, I can see this happening all too easily.

Now, this isn’t eMusic’s problem as such – it’s inherent in the subscription model. But it’s automatically avoided in an individual track purchase model – there’s no risk of John Doe getting screwed by forgetting to cancel his subscription. It’s the difference between active participation in commerce (purchasing individual tracks) and passive participation (getting tracks until you choose to stop). In this particular case, I strongly prefer the active model, even if it’s less convenient.

Sam – While I agree that eMusic isn’t bad, I despise the subscription model. It’s great if you remember to download all 50 tracks – that’s 30 cents per track, well below my personal “price of entry” of 50 cents. But if you forget to download your tracks one month for some reason, you just blew $15. And the combination of lots of automatically recurring monthly charges can bury someone in unanticipated debt or bank fees WAY too fast.

The artists are still getting their money, just it comes from a different source. When I first saw the Stones, the ticket was $6.00….the last time we went, we paid over $200 per ticket. I know there’s been a bit of inflation, but $200????

Jeff

“…If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that’s great. It’s your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail….”

Record industry practices revisionism about music recording

Amazon has taken a step in the right direction with MP3 albums for $9.00 and songs for $.89, down from iTunes’s $.99.

Since the cost of supplies is so cheap, the price can come lower still and marginalize file sharing completely.

I”d like to see the same for books: $3.99 for the average ebook and an accompanying PDF.

With prices like that, you’d see people taking chances on something new all the time.

Like when I was a kid and scoured the racks at the local discount mart for new LP releases at $2.99 . That’s how I build my eclectic-to-a-fault record collection.

That adventurous spirit in patrons of the arts needs to be nourished.

Disclaimer: I’m not a businessman. Feel free to tell me if you think I’m dreaming.

This RIAA war on music has all the legitimacy of the War on Drugs nonsense. Overblown and made up conservative ideas for the financial gain.

There’s a point where laws should be judged on whether they’re actually valid or not; not because corporations write them and government flunkies pass them. Especially when the music itself is only worth $15, then it should probably only be something akin to the cost of a speeding ticket.

“It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer,” the brief states. “Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ‘.mp3′ format. … Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. … Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.”

The language here looks to me like bad lawyering. Once they’re converted into mp3s AND they’re in a shared folder they’re illegal – does this mean that they’re not illegal if only one condition is met? Or is he asserting that either condition constitutes lawbreaking?

My guess is the latter.

Jeff

Also, killer quote, Sam:

I’m still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an industry that succeeded with a “sue the customer” business model.

However, even if there’s a technically valid point of law in there somewhere, I think the RIAA’s position becomes clearer and clearer. They have NO FUCKING IDEA what to do about all this reality around them, and they’re going to keep suing people until it’s 1975 again. If I get summoned for jury duty and there’s a case where somebody is accused of shoplifting music, the prosecutor is in for a long day. Even if he has video evidence, a taped confession, 35 eyewitnesses and a defendant who breaks down on the stand like he’s being buggered by Perry Mason.

I’m still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of an industry that succeeded with a “sue the customer” business model.

A couple of interesting links:
The Music Industry’s talking points: “Hey, we’re obsolete.”

and

Oregon Challenges RIAA’s Tactics in Music Piracy Claim