Ok, the fake ticket thing is a legitimate concern, but that is illegal anyway, selling fake goods.
Otherwise, what is wrong with the other 2 points? Doesn't the first sale doctrine fall into this somewhere? Someone buys a bunch of tickets, and wishes to resell them. He has the right to set his own price, whether it be more or less than what he bought them for. People have the ability to buy from him, or the venue.
This is basic free market, supply and demand.
Its like saying if I bought 50% of all of the frosted flakes in the U.S. and decided to sell them for $1 per box, I shouldn't be able to? If people want the cereal, they'll buy it. If the price isn't right, they'll go home empty
But why would it have to be that way? Couldn't you have barracades set up to direct a peaceful flow of traffic, like at amusement parks? And inside the venue, you could have security staff direct the seating. You sit where they tell you to sit.
Or, they could sell the better seats first, at a higher price, then worse seats for less.
Or, they could sell tickets at the door, get em in the section you want, pay, and immediately have your stub taken. This prevents scalpers, and also gives people assigned seating.
But in fact it is a service. You are paying for a service, and not the content itself.
The service is access to the movies, quickly, easily, and conveniently. You're not purchasing movies, but temporary access to them, which is a service. Since you can't retain the content, you must be paying for the use of the content, and not the content itself.
Or, the ISPs worth subscribing will always charge the same as the other, and will usually charge a decently high price, and the shitty ISPs will charge a lot less to try to attract customers, but the customers will become frustrated with them, and move to the big ISPs.
It'll be the same as it is the with Wireless companies. We have a decent number of them, and AT&T and Verizon always follow each other in price, whereas sprint and tmobile have cheaper plans, but nobody wants their crap coverage.
Limited resources should never be exploited by capitalism, but should instead be regulated for ALL to use
"If people don't like the legal restrictions of copyright, they should change the law. That would be moral."
So its moral if its legal, and immoral if it is illegal.
Anyways, your contract analogy is poor. When I BUY something, it is mine to do what I want with it. Now, if I contract something from someone, there may be restrictions. But you're saying that people who BOUGHT this sheet music are still restricted from doing what they want with it (putting it on TPB or the like). Thats not right.
Civil disobedience seems to be the chosen method for changing the law here, like during prohibition and the civil rights movement. Politicians are in the pockets of the Music/Movie industry. It would be nearly impossible to have positive copyright reform through electing politicians. One day the law will change, and I will continue my part in making that happen.
You forget that these 'Rights' that you speak of were granted by law, not by some natural force. While copyright infringement (NOT STEALING) is illegal, I don't see how morality is involved at all.
Musicians do not have some inherent right to make money. There are plenty of musicians out there who create, play, and sell music, and they don't make shit, because they're terrible. This guy has made a name for himself, and he thinks that entitles him to make money, and it still doesn't. I always reason this back to ECON101 logic, supply and demand. The music industry can no longer artificially limit the recorded music market (in this case, the sheet music market) since in the digital world of today, distribution costs zero. If artists refuse to adapt, that is their problem.
I'm mixed on this matter. I don't want to end up with a cell phone bill that is $1,000 but at the same time, I also know not to use my data plan in Europe without checking the pricing first. Ignorance is no excuse; call your phone company and do a price check on anything and everything if you have any questions, because when the bill comes around, there is no excuse for ignorance. There are some exceptions (such as the famous vzw .002 dollars/cents case) but I believe people need to take responsibility for the services they use (no matter how outrageous the pricing plans are)
A lot of times we here stories of kids racking up these bills. If the kid is not responsible enough to use a cell phone within the plan that the parent has selected for him/her, then he/she should not be getting a cell phone. Some kids may not have been told whats extra and what isn't, and any bill they rack up is the parent's fault for not properly instructing them as to what they're allowed to do with the phone.
Anyway, I think it all boils down to responsibility. Should there be laws to prevent irresponsible behavior? No. Would it be nice if the mobile phone operators sent bill warnings? Yes. In the end, its about cost and profits. The phone companies don't want to lose the profits from the runaway bills, and they don't want to set up or run a system that alerts users to a potentially runaway bill.
Regardless, why should EA or anyone shell out more support costs, hardware costs, etc. for a person who buys the game 6 years after it came out (that would be me btw)? Even if it is negligible, those are dollars that could be used elsewhere rather than on someone who gave no money back to EA.
I don't care if those dollars can be used elsewhere, those dollars are supposed to be used to support a game I bought legally, whether or not i bought it used or new.
So, are you saying that if I buy the game new on day 1, it should work for me 6 years later, but it shouldn't work for people who bought it used? Most of the value of the game is that people can sell it and recoup the some of the purchasing cost. By making people who buy the game secondhand pay something to the developer, the game's original cost should be lowered to compensate.