I'm starting to like the idea of a subscription-based iTunes more and more, Napster is a seriously nice bargain that's convenient and low-cost.
and with a minorbit of effort, one cold keep the songs after cancelling the subscribtion...this is why in a longer term (say 2-5 years out) the subscribtion model will in my estimation fade away, People pay for Cable because it isnt the same thing every single month, but the music industry has a problem: NO NEW MUSIC IS ANY GOOD (out side of the indy scene)
I think that many people (many millions that would never consider using file sharing) would think nothing of subscribing, DLing a few catalogs and disabling the DRM...then killing their subscribtions, and it would technically be sort of legal in the same way it is legal to order HBO, tape a movie and cancel it the same day*.
*See the Sony BetaMax supreme court case and the 1984 home recording act
In an interview some time ago Jobs said that if the demand was there Apple would offer one. They don't think the demand is there.
One other thing. We know about all of the trouble Apple has had, particularly recently, in getting the music companies aboard with contracts.
What most don't know, but was brought to the public's attention recently, is the fact that the subscription services have NOT as yet gotten a contract to allow their services to run.
ALL of the subscription services are running without a contract with the music companies. MS, as you might remember, broke off negotiations with the music industry because they wanted between about (don't have the exact numbers) $6.50 and $8.50 a month for EVERY customer of the service, in addition to money for each song they bought from those services.
MS, correctly, said that this was too much, and that they (MS) couldn't see a way to a resolution of the issue.
These companies have been paying money into an escrow account since they started. But the amounts they are paying in are far less than what the music industry is demanding.
At some point the "shit will hit the fan", so to speak.
When that happens, either the monthly fees will rise by a very large amount, or the services will have to close down. The music companies have indicated that they will not allow this situation to continue indefinitely.
This is very likely another reason why Apple is not offering these services. I don't believe that Apple would want to offer a service for which the costs are not fixed by contract. Jobs has, if anything, some understanding as to what this could do to the trust between Apple and its customers.
and with a minorbit of effort, one cold keep the songs after cancelling the subscribtion...this is why in a longer term (say 2-5 years out) the subscribtion model will in my estimation fade away, People pay for Cable because it isnt the same thing every single month, but the music industry has a problem: NO NEW MUSIC IS ANY GOOD (out side of the indy scene)
I think that many people (many millions that would never consider using file sharing) would think nothing of subscribing, DLing a few catalogs and disabling the DRM...then killing their subscribtions, and it would technically be sort of legal in the same way it is legal to order HBO, tape a movie and cancel it the same day*.
*See the Sony BetaMax supreme court case and the 1984 home recording act
Not really. Disabling the DRM would qualify as illegal under the DMCA. Taping a show off of HBO is under fair use in the analog arena, but DRM qualifies as a copy-protection mechanism which it is illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (in the US, and I believe even Australia has a similar law). HBO's subscription service is not a copyright protection mechanism. Sure the cable signal is scrambled, but you had the legal right to watch the movie while you had the subscription. If there was some way for you to record the songs from Napster while you were playing them.... that might be a loophole around that. But a lot of this is untested in the courts.
Not really. Disabling the DRM would qualify as illegal under the DMCA. Taping a show off of HBO is under fair use in the analog arena, but DRM qualifies as a copy-protection mechanism which it is illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (in the US, and I believe even Australia has a similar law). HBO's subscription service is not a copyright protection mechanism. Sure the cable signal is scrambled, but you had the legal right to watch the movie while you had the subscription. If there was some way for you to record the songs from Napster while you were playing them.... that might be a loophole around that. But a lot of this is untested in the courts.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm starting to like the idea of a subscription-based iTunes more and more, Napster is a seriously nice bargain that's convenient and low-cost.
and with a minorbit of effort, one cold keep the songs after cancelling the subscribtion...this is why in a longer term (say 2-5 years out) the subscribtion model will in my estimation fade away, People pay for Cable because it isnt the same thing every single month, but the music industry has a problem: NO NEW MUSIC IS ANY GOOD (out side of the indy scene)
I think that many people (many millions that would never consider using file sharing) would think nothing of subscribing, DLing a few catalogs and disabling the DRM...then killing their subscribtions, and it would technically be sort of legal in the same way it is legal to order HBO, tape a movie and cancel it the same day*.
*See the Sony BetaMax supreme court case and the 1984 home recording act
In an interview some time ago Jobs said that if the demand was there Apple would offer one. They don't think the demand is there.
One other thing. We know about all of the trouble Apple has had, particularly recently, in getting the music companies aboard with contracts.
What most don't know, but was brought to the public's attention recently, is the fact that the subscription services have NOT as yet gotten a contract to allow their services to run.
ALL of the subscription services are running without a contract with the music companies. MS, as you might remember, broke off negotiations with the music industry because they wanted between about (don't have the exact numbers) $6.50 and $8.50 a month for EVERY customer of the service, in addition to money for each song they bought from those services.
MS, correctly, said that this was too much, and that they (MS) couldn't see a way to a resolution of the issue.
These companies have been paying money into an escrow account since they started. But the amounts they are paying in are far less than what the music industry is demanding.
At some point the "shit will hit the fan", so to speak.
When that happens, either the monthly fees will rise by a very large amount, or the services will have to close down. The music companies have indicated that they will not allow this situation to continue indefinitely.
This is very likely another reason why Apple is not offering these services. I don't believe that Apple would want to offer a service for which the costs are not fixed by contract. Jobs has, if anything, some understanding as to what this could do to the trust between Apple and its customers.
It's really the smart and responsible way to go.
Originally posted by a_greer
and with a minorbit of effort, one cold keep the songs after cancelling the subscribtion...this is why in a longer term (say 2-5 years out) the subscribtion model will in my estimation fade away, People pay for Cable because it isnt the same thing every single month, but the music industry has a problem: NO NEW MUSIC IS ANY GOOD (out side of the indy scene)
I think that many people (many millions that would never consider using file sharing) would think nothing of subscribing, DLing a few catalogs and disabling the DRM...then killing their subscribtions, and it would technically be sort of legal in the same way it is legal to order HBO, tape a movie and cancel it the same day*.
*See the Sony BetaMax supreme court case and the 1984 home recording act
Not really. Disabling the DRM would qualify as illegal under the DMCA. Taping a show off of HBO is under fair use in the analog arena, but DRM qualifies as a copy-protection mechanism which it is illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (in the US, and I believe even Australia has a similar law). HBO's subscription service is not a copyright protection mechanism. Sure the cable signal is scrambled, but you had the legal right to watch the movie while you had the subscription. If there was some way for you to record the songs from Napster while you were playing them.... that might be a loophole around that. But a lot of this is untested in the courts.
Originally posted by pyr3
Not really. Disabling the DRM would qualify as illegal under the DMCA. Taping a show off of HBO is under fair use in the analog arena, but DRM qualifies as a copy-protection mechanism which it is illegal to circumvent under the DMCA (in the US, and I believe even Australia has a similar law). HBO's subscription service is not a copyright protection mechanism. Sure the cable signal is scrambled, but you had the legal right to watch the movie while you had the subscription. If there was some way for you to record the songs from Napster while you were playing them.... that might be a loophole around that. But a lot of this is untested in the courts.
We may be losing this right as well:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051104-5527.html