"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."Seriously? I don't have to repurchase my books. I expect to be able to keep reading it. I don't have to repurchase a photograph, I expect it to stay on my wall and for me to keep looking at it. I don't have to repurchase my cd's or my dad's old records. They keep playing on the devices they were intended to play on. Music industry, this DRM business was your idea, not mine. You don't like it? You find a way around it, you make it so that my product still works. I didn't buy the item because I wanted a DRM product, I want the stupid song. It is thinking like this that is causing the music industry to have the financial problems they say they are having. They have the last ones to the e-table and the most difficult to work with at said table.
Oh yeah, Mr. RIAA Lawyer, this shit is why people don't like us.
Link to arstechnica article came to my attention via Dear Author.
No comments:
Post a Comment