Originally Posted by pidgeon92
Sorry, but you are really comparing apples to oranges. If you buy a license for something, and that license says it is not transferable, then those are the terms of the purchase. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the content, or buy it in a different format that doesn't have the same restrictions.
And sure, if you buy a ticket to a show, you can transfer that ticket to someone else. However, if you buy an airline ticket, most likely the terms of your purchase will indicate that the ticket is not transferable. Again, apples and oranges.
You are right, of course. The "apples vs oranges" problem lies in the strange logic that media companies are trying to force on us. Example: if I don't buy a ticket to a show, but someone who goes to the show leaves a door open and I peer inside and see the show nonetheless, it would be ludicrous if the owner tries to sue me for theft (or copyright violation). Yet, this is exactly what happens if someone gets illegally distributed content.
By the way, the non-reimbursable tickets are usually the lower-cost ones. If you buy a full-price train or airline ticket you usually have the possibility to have it exchanged or reimbursed. In the case of media content, even when you pay full price you don't have those options.
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
Well, actually, laws are in place to keep the industries from endangering or ripping off the public, not necessarily to "guarantee benefits."
I was referring to the greater benefit, in the long run, of all parties: general public and companies. I think that forcing, by law, media companies to set up services and policies that encourage the public *not* to pirate content (e.g., the "if you don't like it and give it back immediately, you can get a substitute" one) would be better, in the long run, than helping them to maintain an unfeasible and outdated status quo.