Andy_C, I am with you point by point.
Let us never forget, that most of the DRM-related discussion is skewed. Record companies "defend" the rights of their artists (their artists' right to a stream of income). But in most cases, these streams of income have been signed away by the artists to these very same companies (when the first record contract was signed). The whole DRM debate seems to me to depend on two levels: 1) the relationship between the artist and the recording company, as described by their record contracts. Artists don't often have any control on the pricing/marketing of their music, they mostly receive some (smaller) cash stream from the recording company in exchange for giving up the rights to cash streams from future sales. 2) the relationship between the recording companies and the final music consumer, who rightly would like to be able to download music freely (eg no expiry, no limitation in changing the format, no limitation in the choice of hardware one uses to stream/play this music) and priced according to quality of the recording. One should try to keep these two aspects of the discussion as separate as possible. One issue is contractual, the other has to do with logistics and distribution. Record companies demagogically try to mix these two issues, as described above. They are unable to innovate at the level of 1), therefore try to force the distortion upon us by acting on 2). There is no reason why this should happen. Giacomo -- gbruzzo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ gbruzzo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3633 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
