Tw, the source of that description, if I recall correctly, was SanDisk itself. As to the cost of paying for copyrighted material, what I fail to understand is why people think they might have a right to get it free. If I want to download a music selection, seems to me that paying a nominal fee per selection, such as a dollar, would not be outlandish, nor would it be difficult to maintain an account that would periodically charge my credit card for such services.
Downloading of music selections, or eventually books and full length movies looks like a more profitable and lower cost way of doing business. If you buy only the selections you want, rather than the total number that would be on a CD, it's going to cost less in terms of copyrighted material, and the publisher can eliminate the cost of the CD, the cost of packaging, and the middleman profits from the retailer. The consumer can get the music without even leaving home, saving money on travel, postage, and other costs.
Why do some people think that copying intellectual or artistic work should be allowed for free? Why is it so cumbersome to have an automatic charge mechanism for paying for downloaded selections that the consumer wants to hear?
As far as making additional copies from the original downloaded copy, it would appear that there would be no way to prevent making analog copies simply by tapping the loudspeaker or other similar connections. The resulting recording would be degraded by the fact that it is no longer digital, and therefore not quite as good in quality as the original. But that part of the copying scenario resembles more the practice of making informal copies of tape recordings, which the courts have not found objectionable. So tell me again, why is it considered too difficult to make a simple download using a simple and secure mechanism for debiting your account?
Art |
