@Steve Withers: that is (was) one of the nice things about eMusic: it was a completely RIAA-free zone. Still is if you're not in the US.
It's also worth keeping in mind that they're not doing anything to the music you've bought, they're just changing their plans. So there is no reason that you would have had to be wary in the past for possible actions in the future. You can always quit.
Given they give you plain ol' MP3s, they'll be yours forever (provided you keep backups :) It's a nice solution for someone like me who rarely has enough money to buy the CDs I want (especially because 90% of what I want I have to order from the US, UK or Germany) but still likes lots of music. It's just become about half as nice, especially when you consider that you're not getting booklets etc.
A few minor factual differences: the price hikes aren't (according to eMusic) the result of Sony. My theory is that they figured that if they announce them at the same time, everyone would ignore the huge price changes (in my case, over twice as much per track) and be all “yay Sony music!”, which of course didn't happen.
Also, we do have album pricing. I think it'll come out about even in the long run, I've seem some cheaper than they would have been, others more expensive. Of course, this now biases me towards the cheaper ones, especially when it's a 45 minute, 7 track album for 9 credits as compared to a 75 minute, 10 track album for 9 credits.
But yes, there does seem to be a significant amount of failure built into the new changes. Fortunately I'm an annual subscriber, so my current 65 credits per month will hang on until about November. Then I'll re-evaluate sticking around.
For me anything that it outside of that biological imperative is the soul, or spirituality.
I would expect that most of those things you list are the result of biological imperatives if you look hard enough.
Also, I think you're redefining the soul which means that it (potentially) different to what the OP was claiming. That's sorta cheating.
that he didn't do that looks pretty bad for someone looking to represent 'the people'.
Definitely. Discussions on how copyright should or shouldn't work aside, the first thing he should be doing is obeying the law.
Hell freezes over as I agree with something robbery says ;)
There's nothing preventing McCain putting adverts up on youtube, it's not 'freedom of speech', it's these adverts that are the problem.
Also, due to the way the US law works, youtube is not allowed to consider fair use, they can't even say something like "hey, this is a blank video with no soundtrack!". If asked to take something down, they must take it down. The author can then petition that it be put back up (if they believe it to be non-infringing) and youtube must put it back, at which point youtube is pretty much out of the picture, and it's up to the two protagonists to fight it out in court or whatever.
There seems to be a failure in Robin's logic to factor in the changes in the use of music in recent years (20-30) beyond pointing to a site where one can download free an album or two.
My point was to do with the particular track. I consider sampling a valid form of expression, building upon items in the (ahem) "collective consciousness" already. It would make me sad to see artists unable to tap into that huge resource.
I'm anti sampling.
I think its unnecessary and a purely economic answer to a creative question.
So, art forms that you approve of are fine, but not others? Just because you don't consider it creative or interesting means that it isn't worth creating?
And, umm, in this case there is no economic consideration. Their stuff is all free for download. But they use samples, and encourage others to sample from them, so I guess it's not worthwhile then.
A pity, I quite like it.
the term troll describing grumpy fucks better fits others in this thread I think ;)
Troll in this context means, loosely: someone who says things for no other purpose than to get a rise out of others (as opposed to furthering the discourse).
It's usually frowned upon (depending of course on the nature of the forum).
to the open source anti copyright guys, I'm interested in your income structure, how do you earn a living for stuff you give away? serious question asked sincerely.
I do it by being good at what I do (toot toot ;). I release software, and people come to me to make them custom versions. They can do it with an in-house team if they want, but I can do it faster and cheaper.
While not income, I also get people making their own additions to it, which is, I guess, a twist on the barter system.
A nice effect is that if a company pays for something, say an extra feature, everybody else using the software gets that for free.
A curious coincidence, all the software I have a significant hand in is to deal with the performance or distribution of music.
This is just me though, there are plenty of other models.
As for infinite terms, I'm against them because they reduce the creative pool that other people can build on. If you have a look at one of the links I posted the other day, you'll also note that something like 14 years has been shown to be most efficient for the economy.
So, just because it's (potentially) a little bit better for me, it's to the detriment of the rest of the world. And, as other things in the world affect me, it's to my detriment also.
A comment on your 'basement' jibe: myth