Re: Apple Computer changes its name

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <1168554155.599100.136810@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
 <bieling@terra.es> wrote:

> Michael J. Mahon ha escrito:
>
>> More likely if you were a record company executive.
> 
> Not really. My neightbour is a singer.  He used to live quite well of
> this alone. Then came napster, and incomes dropped. Ask him. Now he
> works in a TV show (Los Morancos), as an actor.
> 
> Sure, he probably may have wanted a better agreement with the record
> company, but it's much better something than nothing at all. Nothing at
> all is what he gets when you freely copy and give away his songs. And,
> that's another (polemic) story.
> 
> The fact is that Apple wants to sell music, so they *have to* do
> something against piracy in order to convince the record companys to
> sell via iTunes. And, BTW, it's quite easy to workaround itunes'
> "antipiracy measures".
> 
> Anyway, I just wanted to note the reason why this particular thing is
> this particular way.

It's one example of "security theatre": it's a hassle for the honest
user, but it doesn't prevent the determined criminal to steal the
music.



> Although I see your point, and I agree that some "adjustments" may be
> needed in this market's model, I can't stand by the side of the ones
> that find it fair to enjoy all the music they like for 0$ a year.
> Sorry, that's, more like, stealing.

So e.g. listening to the radio only is stealing?  After all, you pay
$0 to listen to the radio.....

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/