I recently bought a car. In the copious documentation that came with it, nowhere did it say I couldn't drive the car only in reverse, on dirt roads, without pants, or on Wednesdays. As far as I can tell, I can do pretty much whatever I want with that car, and the people that sold it to me don't have any say in the matter. Apparently any music I buy might not play by the same rules, with the head of the Finnish branch of the IFPI (the international equivalent of the RIAA) having labeled the ability to listen to music on a computer a privilege. So I need some sort of permission or approval to use something I've purchased however I like, in this case, listen to music on the device of my choice? That's the point of DRM and copy protection, to give the content producer an inordinate amount of control. But the effect of these pointless restrictions on music isn't that they stop file-sharing, far from it. It's really the opposite -- they encourage it. The IFPI and its friends look at the problem from the wrong side. People have minimal incentive to buy expensive, DRM-laden music when they can get unrestricted versions through file-sharing. Instead of improving their product to make it competitive, the labels hope to club people into buying it by eliminating any alternatives.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Norway To Digitize All Norwegian Books, Allowing Domestic IP Addresses To Read All Of Them, Irrespective Of Copyright Status
- Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
- Make Art Not Law
- Comedic Artistry In Amazon Reviews
- GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute