In reply to Zach, why Napster is bad
Zach's posts are here and here.
-----------------
When I brought up the fair use argument I wasn't refering to the mp3 player, and in a license situation you're right, ideally there's no ownership. There's only a reserved right to listen to the music for as long as the consumer pays for the subscription.
Here's a typical license situation (courtesy of the MBE portion of the Bar Exam). A baseball fan purchases season tickets for his favorite team. He doesn't own the seat, or the stadium, or even the team. He just gets to go and enjoy what he loves best with no strings attached: baseball.
If he becomes a menace to the other patrons then the stadium can kick him out. His license can be revoked. What's important for this situation though is, the man knew what he was getting, and what he was losing.
My problem with Napster is that many people will be signing up for this deal with the impression that they'll get to keep the music much like you do with cd purchases. Why else would you compare it to iTunes and blatantly say it's a cheaper and faster way to fill up an mp3 player. And unfortunately many people won't realize that the music will disappear if they cancel their subscription. Sadly, many people don't realize that they have a right to rip copies of their cds, make them into mp3s, unrestricted, upload them to their iPOD or iRiver without them disappearing.
I'm all for a service like iTunes or Napster, but when it includes DRM, and when it appears misleading and lacks the fair use component, that's when the warning bells go off.
As for satellite radio, I still think it's a better alternative. Napster costs $15 a month, and while it does give you control over your playlist, it still has the DRM controls. Satellite on the other hand can cost between $9-$13, and though there is no control over the playlist, there's more exposure to music you might never had heard before, and you can record it, and it's cheaper.
Comments
All good points. As for the perceved deception, I'm not sure I agree. People lease cars all the time, and that's analogous to what this is - a lease on music. I think the service makes it fairly clear what's going on. But let me be perfectly clear that I'm not signing up for the service myself. Maybe it just reminds me of Netflix, which I enjoy immensely, and which I've gotten used to.
Also, let me point out that making a digital copy of satellite radio is NOT allowed under copyright law. There's an exception made for analog cassettes, but if you try making mp3's of satellite radio songs, you're over the line and into infringement. I'll have to look up the statutes, but that's something I remember clearly from copyright and cyberlaw.
Posted by: Zach | February 9, 2005 1:29 AM
Actually, I don't think it's law just yet with regard to satellite. I think they were looking into making it illegal, but like you I'm not sure. I focused more on fair use and DMCA in my last copyright class in law school, and satellite radio wasn't big enough yet. I do remember reading something a few months back about lobbying efforts to insert protection schemes to prevent recording from satelite radio.
As for the license, it may be clear cut. It may be like Netflix, which is an excellant service. I still don't like it. It seems underhanded and expensive, and the only thing going for it is control over playlists. I just hope consumers realize it.
Posted by: yasmín | February 10, 2005 12:58 PM