|
The comments on the Ars Technica article are terrific.
"When GM went bankrupt they didn't come and take away everybody's car keys."
"If pirating music is analogous to stealing, then revoking access to legally-purchased music is also analogous to stealing. So why should the latter be legal when the former is not?"
"As a lawyer, does he seriously expect that his contracts end if a paper copy fades? 'Oh, sorry, I spilled ketchup on my contract. I guess I am out of it now'.... DRM is nothing more than the electronic emulation of vinyl that wears out over time. The music industry relied on that for survival, and CD's unbroke their management style."
"The RIAA are attempting to morph 'their' industry from one which sells a definite product (this album, that single) into one which provides a service to which consumer must subscribe. DRM and authentication servers are the chosen vehicle. I agree with those in this thread who think this is a techno-arms race...."
"The only question you should ask in this case is:
Would you pay me my money back after you take away my right to listen to said music?
I paid for a right to play music, it didn't have an expiry date attached to it. So if the seller decides to expire the music, I am entitled to a refund."
"He's trying to legal-proof his comments by couching it in terms of 'distribution'.
The fatal flaw in his argument is the fact that consumers don't buy 'distribution', we buy the product and in the case of music / entertainment the mode of distribution is most-certainly not the product."
|