"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote in message
news:4a27d620@news.povray.org...

> > Philosophical question: Are we entitled to be able to have access to any
> > art
> > on any device so long as it technically possible? Do not the decisions
of
> > a
> > vendor/copyright holder count for anything, even when they may be
> > perceived
> > as arbitrary?

> If I offer something for sale, I would have absolutely no expectations
> regarding to whom I could or could not sell it.
> "Hi.  I want to buy a recording from you."
> "Ok, but are you black?  Do you live in China?  Are you a homosexual?  If
> you've answered 'yes' to any of these questions, I won't sell it to you."

I think there are anti-discriminatory laws to cover some of that. But
regional sales is another matter, as is platform sales. I, as a vendor, may
chose not to make my software install/register on W2K, even though it may
technically run there. Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the
XP version to bypass installation/registration? Likewise, a music vendor may
only release a track on CD audio. Does that mean others have free pass to
convert it to MP3 to play on their MP3 players?

> But the real problem with this argument is the implication that the
artists
> (copyright holders) have actually determined that they do not want to sell
> their music outside of Japan.  They haven't.  The music industry has made
> this decision for them, so that they can maintain greater control over
> pricing within various markets, and in so doing, they are actually denying
> the artists the money that they could otherwise obtain easily.

Hence I used the term "arbitrary" to describe the decision. I don't wish to
discuss whether we think the decision is good or bad, or who it benefits.
There may be very complex reasonings behind it, or it might be a fluke.
Shouldn't it be respected nonetheless?

Post a reply to this message