Quote:
Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm sorry but when you buy music you don't own the music. It is rhetoric to say it is "yours."
In effect, when you buy music you are licensing it for personal use (i.e. fair use). In most cases you own the medium upon which it was distributed (CD, file, whatever), but you do NOT get any further rights from that point on unless they are granted by the copyright holder. So yes, you are only leasing the privilege to hear the music, like it or not.
And yes, they have every right to license the hardware or software required to play their material. IT BELONGS TO THEM. Don't like it? Then don't buy it. But you have no right to steal it.
I think there are better models than DRM to protect ownership. But the facts remain the facts.
--Chris
|
The facts are determined by the lobbying money buying the laws. Corporate control of the consumer as in all industries in the good ole USof A. Held prisoner and swindled out of all but the slimmest of existance for the good of the people. Their cost to profit margins will bury them and the artist. I don't have to have music to stay alive. There are so many outlets for music that I don't have to buy CDs. There is no "medium" worth $20 that limits use. The numbers show it. They blame it on internet theft. No, I don't buy CDs from the thief downloading tera drives of music. The loss is from us that are tired of the game and other mediums to gain access to the music.
The music has to be fed to an amp with an analog signal. So long as this is the interface, a tape deck can record it. Don't matter how much DRM they use. That's why such a push to obsolete the technology. Then all your leased music will have to be leased all over again. Will the dead artist (or their family) get a cent? Can I get credit for my existing lease? No. You have to pay again. I paid $12 for a CD twenty years ago. If they obsolete the format, I have to pay maybe $20 for the DVD (or whatever the next format charge). Yeah, thats fair. If I record my VHS tapes to a current format, that's stealing though.
As to the stealing issue, I agree that the music should be protected and the artist should be paid. The music industry has stolen so many ignorant artist livelihood that the issue is a joke. They are the pot calling the kettle black. They do what they want, charge like a drug company and then cry when the consumer rebels against the practices.
If the music industry is so proud of its product to charge what it does, enjoy it, they can have it. See if they can keep up the lavish lifestyle without the consumer. But of course the govenrnent won't allow that to happen. We need to be entertained lest we become disgruntled to the fleecing. Thats the only thing balancing the industry from getting everything.
As to the OP, I also disagree. They were profitting from the music. They should be legally held accountable. They aren't hobbyists. They are thiefs.
The above rant is my opinion and does not represent anyone. Well, maybe my wife.
