|
To Andrew H: "if you sneak the skillet out of the store without paying for it: there is no requirement that you actually use it to make an omelette."
This comparison is wrong and misleading, for two reasons:
1. if I steal a skillet, the shopkeeper does not own it anymore and cannot sell it to someone else; if I illegally download a movie, the publisher does not lose property.
2. if I have a skillet, be it bought or stolen, it is mine. I can sell it, lend it, give it as a gift to a friend, or take it to my new house. If I download (DRM'd) content, I am not allowed to do these things (for "house" read "device").
"Content producers don't tie payment to the act of playing."
My point is that in reality they DO, without saying it. Otherwise, how could they complain if you get and play the content (illegally) without any involvement on their part?
"As a suggestion for a business model for content providers..."
Mine is not a suggestion for a business model: it is a statement (in the form of proposal for legal action) about the unacceptable fact that media companies want all the advantages of selling physical media, AND all the advantages of selling software-like licenses. Wizwor explained this perfectly.
|