He's right in a sense. You "purchase" not a CD but a permission to use the CD. The real question is: How much resources should be expended by law enforcement to find and punish people who trespass said "bought permission"? Given the permission being sold, I say not much.
It's more like the clothing store saying: I don't sell socks, I sell permissions to use socks. If you plan to use your socks with shoes that's a whole other permission. That permission is sold separately.
Taplin then comes up with his "solution." It's to have every ISP charge users $2 to $3/month which would go into a giant global pool that would be distributed to copyright holders.
I'll go with that.
By virtue of the present post I'm a "copyright holder". What's my cut ??
Cognitive dissonance
I wonder if those who support B&N's actions also support the premise "Intellectual Property = Property."
Should have seen it coming.
They should have seen it coming when they patented one click shopping.
Don't forget
Let us not forget to appropriately protect that other fountain of innovation: the turtleneck sweater.
Wrong in many ways.
He's right in a sense. You "purchase" not a CD but a permission to use the CD. The real question is: How much resources should be expended by law enforcement to find and punish people who trespass said "bought permission"? Given the permission being sold, I say not much.
It's more like the clothing store saying: I don't sell socks, I sell permissions to use socks. If you plan to use your socks with shoes that's a whole other permission. That permission is sold separately.
(untitled comment)
Taplin then comes up with his "solution." It's to have every ISP charge users $2 to $3/month which would go into a giant global pool that would be distributed to copyright holders.
I'll go with that.
By virtue of the present post I'm a "copyright holder". What's my cut ??