Well, let's start at the bottom of your post and work up.
No, I am pretty worried about the Patriot Act. So I do think we agree on that point.
I was not meaning to suggest that you personally were a criminal, and am sorry it sounded that way. But many, many people did and do illegally copy and distribute music tracks. And they are criminals. Not the same caliber criminal as a murderer or bank robber, granted. More like a purse snatcher, I would think.
Let's say you invited me into your home (not likely after this exchange, but let's imagine it). And as I walked around your living room I noticed your iPod and decided I wanted it. Do I have the right to take it just because I want it? Of course not. It's yours. You own it. You labored to some degree to earn enough to buy it. You paid for the gas to get you to the Apple store or for the ISP that allowed you order online.
If you look at the license you get when you buy or download music, the music is not yours. You do not own it. The label or the artist or, more likely, a publisher, owns the music. It belongs to them in much the same way that iPod is yours. They paid for the engineering, for marketing, for distribution, perhaps an advance to the artist. Those companies labored to some degree to earn enough to buy that music from the artist. And all of those people, including the artist, get hurt when consumers copy the work without paying for it, just as much as you would get hurt if I took your iPod.
Now current implementation of DRM sucks. We all know that. But WHY does DRM suck? Because it makes it inconvenient for consumers to use the music outside the scope of the license they were granted when they bought the music? Okay. Wait a minute. I go to McDonalds and get pissed at them when they won't serve me pizza? Of course not! If I want pizza, I go to the Pizza Palace. So why be pissed at folks encoding DRM when you know, up front, and in advance of the purchase, that there are restrictions to the use of the music?
Well, it sound like many of us (notice I stayed away from saying "you") are pissed because we want to use the music on some MP3 player other than the iPod or we want to be able to copy the music in some way that we weren't issued a license to do. So your solution is reasonable. Don't buy DRM encoded music if you don't want to be restricted in terms of use. Don't go to McDonalds for a pizza.
Another option would be to remove the DRM code and raise the price enough to cover potential duplication and other uses. But the high price would probably keep you from buying the music, too.
So what's right? I honestly don't know, and I honestly don't presume that what is right for me would be right for you. But the record industry, the book industry, the food industry, the computer industry, you and even me ... we all have the right to protect our property (just try getting the spice recipe for the taco filling at Taco Bell).
I suppose I probably sound as arrogant in my position on DRM as you do in yours. I recognize that I may not get it but, as an artist whose music sells on iTunes, I am much happier getting my few cents for each track. And with Apple selling five million tracks a day, I would have to imagine they are not too concerned that some folks might not buy DRM encoded tracks. There seem to be plenty out there who will. Thank goodness.
