Why do I get the impression that there are several people who have horribly misunderstood what I said?
A rights-holder can pull their product from the market. ingmar's proposed legislation takes away that right by legalizing unauthorized copies if the rights-holder exercises that right.
No one has ever implied that a rights-holder is or should be able to:
- forbid a sale retroactively
- sell only to a selective subset of the population. Except apparently if it is digital meda.
- forbid resale of an already-purchased item. Except apprently if it is digital media.
Whatever. I certainly don't understand how anyone could possibly say:
Quote:
|
It's only for these "download things" that they think they have that right.
|
Could that statement have possibly been more backward?
