Who really owns the music I buy?
Remembering the readings from last week and many of the other blog entries on them, it's pretty clear that the legal ramifications of these issues are meant to protect the profits of the corporations who sell products, not the artists who originally created them. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the music industry. First off, let me start by saying that I love my iPod and iTunes. I can carry my entire music collection in my pocket now without having to worry about stacks and stacks of CDs, and if I ever decide I like any other songs, I can just go on iTunes and download it without buying a whole album with maybe 2 or 3 songs I'll ever really listen to, and best of all, it's all 100% legal. But even as I'm enjoying the benefits of being able to do all that now, it bothers me to think what would happen if I ever decided to upgrade my iPod or get a new laptop. What would happen to all my songs? Would I have to go back on iTunes and spend all that money again if I wanted to have them on my new computer? According to the readings for this week, yes I would. First of all "iPod is a roach motel" for music (Steve Jobs' iTunes dance, 2). There's essentially no way for me to back up any of my music files, so if they were ever to disapear off my hard drive for some reason, they're gone for good. This just gives the most rights over to the record companies, not the consumers or even the original artists, who have apparently pleaded with Apple to make their music available without these restrictions, according to the article.
Given the alternative of simply buying all this music on CDs, I really don't see why all these restrictions need to be in place. After all, the record companies have never placed restrictions of where hard copies of their music can be played. I don't need to license separate copies of the same album to play on a portable CD player, on a home theater system, and in the car. With all these restrictions in place, it's almost more like they're letting consumers borrow the music without really letting them own it. Treating all consumers as untrusted parties is the wrong way of thinking, and all it'll do is encourage people to find ways around it. While outright stealing the music is wrong, record companies at least need to account for normal problems the average consumer might encounter owning a music file without constantly looking out for their own interests.
Comments
I also agree that there is no reason for all these restrictions placed on music that you own already. It seems as though that is true-- people have gone beyond to break the rules because they are being treated as "untrusted parties." I don't think it is ethical but there are definitely better ways of approaching customers.
Posted by: May | April 11, 2007 04:28 PM
I agree with your statement, but I don't want to buy all of my music on CDs. I just want to pay for the music I want. And most of all, I personally don't like the clutter of CDs or DVDs and the cases. I just want the files on my computer. Then I avoid the clutter and the scratched CDs or DVDs. It's also means less junk, CDs, DVDs, and cases going into our landfills.
Posted by: Dale | April 13, 2007 10:10 AM