On 25 Jan 2006 at 11:09, Rich Koziol wrote:

> The RIAA bozo presented some twisted arguments, which the senators 
> could not follow, implying that in the future they will let you 
> listen/watch, but not record anything.  I'm sure that day is coming, 
> if hardware mfg is forced to install blocking chips/code.

Well, there's a question about *WHY* you should be allowed to record 
things.  If a copyright holder wishes to make something available "one 
time only", I'm not exactly sure what the rationale is that makes it so 
noble to use technology to thwart that wish.  I was just at a concert 
where they made it clear that no recording devices were permitted, and I 
don't think anyone thought that that was a grievous violation of their 
rights, even though my wife [who had a ticket, but was sick and couldn't 
make it] missed the show.  Should I have demanded that since she had a 
ticket [or even if not???] that I should be able to videotape the show 
for her viewing pleasure later?  What if I missed some part and wanted to 
see it again.. what a shame that they wouldn't let me record it...

And the fact is that people *DO* abuse their ability to record [we just 
saw that on this list: someone asked about how they could copy a DVD so 
they could watch it on their laptop while they were on a trip while their 
wife watched the original at home.].

So help me here: What is the philosophical/ethical problem if some 
copyrighted materials come on some media or using some distribution 
channel, be it an mp3 feed or some other thing, that has strings 
attached?  As long as you know what the strings are up front, and can 
choose or not to accept the terms, what is the problem?  Why is it 
ethical to apparently accept the terms when you acquired the copy but 
when the reality is that you fully intended NOT to obey the conditions?  
On what basis do you believe you should have the right to *tell* a 
copyright holder exactly what rights they *MUST* delegate to you?

[NB: I am *NOT* a fan of many of the constraints that copyright holders 
are trying to impose, but I can't think of a good reason why a copyright 
holder shouldn't have the prerogative to impose those constraints (even 
if I think they're obnoxious and foolish) and I certainly don't see it as 
appropriate to ennoble the folks that work so hard to defeat those 
constraints.  I figure I'll vote with my pocketbook and not buy things 
I'm not happy with.  My view is that if you feel a Rolex watch is grossly 
overpriced, the recourse is to not buy one and not just to steal one.]

  /Bernie\

-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--       

--
                ----------------------------------------
The WIN-HOME mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Reply via email to