Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
ok there's the confusion, this is how i see it
case 1: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies
case 2: someone who has not purchased the rights to make digital copies
i see it like that cause when you purchase a cd, you're purchasing one copy of the music, and have the right to make one backup. when you purchase the rights to make digital copies all willy nilly you typically receive the masters that the work was recorded on, not a cd, which contains drm and many other measures to prevent copies being made, so by copying a song onto itunes you're completely disregarding the artists intent and their right to control their content.
this is the contradiction in your logic that i see.
|
There's not a contradiction, because you're applying your and the RIAA's logic to mine.
I don't think an artist should have the right to dictate how a consumer digests the art they have purchased the right to view
as long as that method is restricted to personal use. In the same token, I think somebody should be able to, if they want to, transcribe Harry Potter novels onto rolls of toilet paper for their own reading.
But EVEN
IF there was a discrepancy there, aren't you throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you decide to destroy copyright just because of an issue over rights to digital copies?
Of the two unfavourable scenarios, one being zero copyright, and the other being legislation wherein making digital copies of purchased art is illegal, which one is more damaging? In one, the profitability of art is decimated. In the other, the consumer simply has to purchase art in their favoured medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
your concept of 'the right to have art' is ridiculous.
|
Really? You don't think the art on a CD is the same as the art on an exact MP3 copy?
You have to be purposefully stupid not to recognize my point.