Exactly... I think everybody would agree that it would be ridiculous to,
say, have to buy a new license of XSI because you scratched the cd. But
for music and movies they're getting away with it. And, especially when
you're buying mp3's on the web, what are you buying if it's not the
right to the music that's contained? The right to arrange the data on
your hard drive in a certain pattern? :P
Nicolas Langlois wrote:
I know I'll probably get flamed too for this but here it goes:
That's precisely it. They're is no clear distinction what you're
buying when you're buying a CD or DVD. Ask the record or film
companies what you're buying when your buying a CD or DVD and they'll
tell you you're buying the medium (CD or DVD) along with the right to
watch or listen to it privately when ever you want. Which means you
paid for the Copyright and that you also paid the artist/staff that
worked on that medium.
Now what happens when your CD or DVD doesn't play anymore (like that
old Joshua Tree album of mine - thank god I ripped it in mp3) because
it's been listened too too many times. I'm willing to pay again 1$-2$
for the medium (which should be enough to pay for medium, printing,
case, pamphlet, and even for transport - I don't see why I should pay
for extra marketing since that already worked with me) to have a new
one since I've already bought the Copyrights to that album. Now why
won't they give me a new Joshua Tree album. And now I hear you: Whould
you get a new car for a rebate when your old one doesn't work anymore?
The fact is it's not the same thing. I never bought a Copyright on a
car. And since they're telling me I bought the rights to listen to the
album, I just want my rights back! That's all. So why should I pay the
full price again since I've already paid for the rights? I know the
price of the media but isn't the rights worth anything?
my 2 cents
niko
Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:
The issue is fair use. We want to use music / video we purchase in
ways that WE decide. We want to use it on devices WE want to use it
on. We want to be able to make a legal backup copy. We want to be
able to play our video / music 5 or 10 years from now.
DRM is not the answer. It prevents to much fair use. Anyway, the
record companies just want *control* they want to decide who is the
next hot band. They don't want the people to decide these things...
The issue is not fair use at all, it's about the human nature
of not wanting to pay for anything. It's the difficulty of putting
value on something that isn't physical. The vast majority of people
do not care about buy legit software/music if they can get it
otherwise easily.
If you pay 10$ to see a movie in the theater, you do not have infinit
rights to see the movie again or keep a so-call 'backup' copy of the
movie. After your 10$ if up, it's finished, people get that. If you
want to build a record collections over years, you can buy them on
physical media. Even so, physical media degrades
and formats change. Nothing is infinitely long-lasting. Apparently
CD-R could last as little as 5 years!
I see a lot of people complain about perhaps having to buy a 12$
iTune album again in 10 years. These people will also buy an 8$
coffee at starbuck that will give them pleasure for 10
minutes. I think that 12$ album paid itself long ago.
The perceived value difference between hardware and software is
out-of-whack, for everyone myself included.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
