The record industry didn’t do anything to solve the case when someone broke into my brother’s home and stole his music collection.
It’s still stolen music that someone is listening to for free.
We all want legal protection (or at least prosecution of the criminals when we are wronged). The RIAA thinks they get to be first in line just because Obama has stacked the Injustice Department with RIAA lawyers.
“We all want legal protection (or at least prosecution of the criminals when we are wronged). The RIAA thinks they get to be first in line just because Obama has stacked the Injustice Department with RIAA lawyers.”
That’s what I’m getting at. This ought to be a limited, practical disucssion. They’re not saying copyrights should be absolute and extend at least 100 generations after the originator’s death, with life imprisonment for anyone who dares transfer information from one format to another. Yet, for some odd reason, free speech, Orwell, fascism, Evil Corporations, and so on get drawn in. All I’m asking is how come this never happens when we discuss property rights, for instance?
That is a perfect example of the point I made previously.
If what he bought was "a bunch of plastic disks", then he has the undisputed right to use them as he sees fit -- stick them in a CD player, stick them under a short table leg, or stick them into a computer to produce MP3 files of the contents.
If what he bought was "a pattern of data", then the owner of the pattern of data might have a say about that MP3 conversion... but they also assume a responsibility for replacing the library in situations such as you describe (because otherwise they are no longer providing what he bought).