Hello Bret Johnson,
That's why I referred to both "playing" and "listening" in my original statement -- I did that on purpose. The _purpose_ of music is to be heard, not to merely be played (e.g., when no one is listening). The musicians are in fact deciding who can and can't listen to their music -- essentially saying, "If you believe differently than me and _I_ think you might interpret my music to mean something other than how _I_ want you to interpret it, then you can't listen to it." They have special words to describe non-musicians (like politicians) who try to do the same thing, and those words are not flattering.
I do not recall any legal doctrine that says that I somehow have an inherent "right" or "freedom" to listen to, say, Beyonce's latest album, without paying anything to her and without her agreeing to it in any sense whatsoever. The whole issue is not about with "interpretation" or "belief" or whatever fluffy concept du jour. It is about having clear rules about when and how people can share and distribute stuff, and abiding by these rules. Perhaps you may disagree about which rules are good and which rules are bad... but surely we can agree that there need to be _some_ rules, and that the rules should be clear. Just my 2 cents. Thank you! -- https://gitlab.com/tkchia :: https://github.com/tkchia _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
