Also, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to think that's ridiculous. Because the person who sells the I-Pod has to buy new songs for download, right? Wouldn't that be kind of like selling a juke box and having to smash all the records/CDs?
Meanwhile, over the years, the music industry has gotten over in a sense simply due to technology. The older posters used to own LPs, which they then bought tapes for, which now they've had to purchase CDs. Not complaining, but why should someone have to buy the rights to listen to the same damn album or song three or four times within their lifetime.
I'm all for intellectual property rights, but the industry needs to focus on the "big dogs" abusing the system and not those that "make mix CDs" for themselves or sell I-Pods. Obviously they have to rattle the sabres a little bit...
No, it would be like selling the juke box and not keeping copies of the records for yourself while allowing the new owner to have them, too. One or the other of you can have them, but not both.
Meanwhile, over the years, the music industry has gotten over in a sense simply due to technology. The older posters used to own LPs, which they then bought tapes for, which now they've had to purchase CDs. Not complaining, but why should someone have to buy the rights to listen to the same damn album or song three or four times within their lifetime.
You won't get any real argument from me about this other than to say that their end of the agreement was to provide a single copy of the music on a medium that was acceptable to the licensee at the time of the transaction. They retained no obligation to perpetually provide replacement media because of wear and tear, loss, user misuse, or even technological advances. Offering a trade-in program would be nice, though - but not legally required.
I'm all for intellectual property rights, but the industry needs to focus on the "big dogs" abusing the system and not those that "make mix CDs" for themselves or sell I-Pods. Obviously they have to rattle the sabres a little bit...
It seems to me that the main focus of actual pursuit of violators is on those making it into a pirating business. That doesn't mean they don't want to remind consumers that just because there is little chance of being caught for a minor act of infringement that doesn't make it less illegal.