The owner of the copy is voluntarily sharing it with me.
The author may not be, but then again when Renault sold me a car, they don't get to tell me who I can share it with.
The author may not be, but then again when Renault sold me a car, they don't get to tell me who I can share it with.
Person A made something and is granting access to their creation subject to certain conditions. Person B finds a way to access the creation while circumventing the creators conditions. This is clearly wrong.
Of course, this particular conditions are legal, but that doesn't mean they're not abusive too.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
What you can is not necessarily what you should be able to do.
If paying for music is so abusive then why not just make your own music instead?
I never said paying for music is abusive. I said not being able to share stuff you bought - or that someone has voluntarily shared with you - is abusive.
It's more like you lend your car to a friend under certain conditions (such as not relending) and find that they have in fact re-lent it to their friend who has in turn re-lent it to someone else who re-lent it to someone who decided to melt it down and sell it for scrap.