Quote:
Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob
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.
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.
|
so in your logic if you pay to see a movie in a movie theatre, you've actually purchased the rights to see it again, as many times as you want, for free?