Windows Vista DRM:

[necrovore]

As to the social context thing, I may have misinterpreted the meaning of that phrase. Obviously if I borrow a chair the original owner still has the right to set the terms of its use, even if I am in private and no one can observe whether I am following those terms or not. It is a matter of respecting the owner's wishes. But more importantly, the social context still applies, because the original owner's property is still his. If you walk into a town and no one is around, that does not mean that you can assert ownership of everything you see. The social context is still there. It is also reasonable that when you buy a CD, you own the CD but you are only "borrowing" the content of that CD. However, this has little to do with copyright; even if there were no copyright, the original owner of the CD would still have the right to set terms on the content.

It is also correct that you do not have a natural right to the property of others. You do, however, have a natural right to your own property, even if you bought that property from someone else. And in exercising your own property rights, there is no social context; you do not need to seek the approval of anyone else. If the seller imposed terms on the sale, then that indicates a partial-ownership situation, and you have a natural right to do anything not prohibited by those terms -- anything that does not trespass onto the part that the original seller still owns. So really I haven't discovered any new natural rights here and the whole natural rights argument, and the social context argument, were red herrings. I think I agree with other Objectivists on those issues.

The question is whether you do or do not have the right to copy CDs to your iPod.

When you buy a CD, the whole value of the CD comes from the terms under which you can use the content of the CD. Those terms are what you are really buying. The physical CD itself has no value. (Would you pay money for a CD if the terms were that you did not have the right to even play it, after having bought it?) So it's a very important question: when you buy a CD, what rights to the content does that purchase confer? And should you be entitled to those rights as long as you own the CD, or can the original author change those rights after your purchase?

If the record companies want to retain the right to change their terms at any time, then the purchaser of a CD really cannot count on having any rights at all, and so the value of the CD decreases. Many buyers would not buy a CD, at current prices, under such terms. The record companies are trying to achieve a contradiction: they want people to buy CDs as always, but they want to not actually sell them the same value that they had reason to believe they were buying.

I found out why I held the belief that it was OK to copy CDs from your iPod. It must have percolated to me from the record companies themselves. I will cite this (PDF). Mr. Verrilli is arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the record companies in MGM Studios et al. vs. Grokster.

The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.

Now, presuming that Verrilli was right about the record companies advertising that they permitted certain copying at the time (and I think he was, because I got the idea, not from the Supreme Court argument, but from an article elsewhere, where a RIAA representative said "We want people to enjoy their music," an article I cannot find anywhere anymore) -- a couple of things were clear.

1. It was reasonable for me to believe at the time I bought my CDs that I could legitimately copy them onto an iPod.
   
2. The RIAA is attempting to use the government to change the terms of the contract after the sale.
   

That, I think, is the problem.

[DavidOdden]

I found out why I held the belief that it was OK to copy CDs from your iPod.

Assuming there isn't an interpretive error in the scope of the statement (not likely since the suits are good at literal talk), combined with the RIAA statement that I've verified, I consider that to be permission to copy (scope needs checking but IOPDs certainly). Legally it may not be binding, but morally I think that closes the case copying works owned by for any RIAA member who hasn't repudiated this statement. BTW, it is good to do the work required to show this, and you did the good thing by doing the fundamental research. Were such knowledge clearly out there, so that all men knew of this permission, then the question of moral evaluation on this particular topic would be very simple.