<ignoring invalid comparisons>


I'm not a thief and I don't cheat. But I'm not gonna let some record company try to cheat me. After all, they don't have to sell any cd's. It's the trade they've chosen. Once our transaction is made, I believe that I have the right to do as I please with MY cd, just as they have the right to spend their money as they see fit. Now don't get me wrong. I think they have every right to implement any kind of copy-protection contraptions into their products before I buy them. (Afterall, the rabbit shop can neuter their rabbits before they offer to sell them.) But once I own it, the government shouldn't be able to tell me how I can and can't use it. That's not right.


This is inconsistent. Copy protection *would* be cheating you out of your right to create a backup copy.

You're right about the 'stealing' legality, although I fail to see where anybody here mentioned 'stealing'...so where did that come from?

I think the point is that most people recognise that if everybody copied music that no-one would buy it and then there would be no new music. Therefore the stance that we take has to be a moral one as the legal position does not protect the copyright holders anymore.

Unfortunately, the proposed remedies to this situation, be they legal or technological, screw the consumer out of their existing rights. And continued wholesale abuse of the 'right to make a copy' provision of the copyright laws only add to the RIAA/MPAA's motivation to chase these remedies.

There is another tangent to the original subject of this thread. A court could easily take the position that the price paid for the player included monies for the music content - and that would be copyright infringement.

I'm still cracking up about the bunnies...