What irks me most is not the inability to choose which music to convert. What irks me is that in almost every case I will have to pay $3 to upgrade albums that were purchased for $10 and that are currently worth $10.

Yes, I know that it's cheaper to upgrade than to re-purchase the album, but it feels like adding an extension to your home only to find out that it's worth no more than it was before.

Oh wait, I see. Apple figures that in today's economy the average person would hardly expect more.

When you buy a song, you don’t enter into an agreement with the artist or whoever actually owns the copyrights. Agreements are contracts generally governed by the common law. Copyright is federal statutory law. Plus the basic elements of contracts don’t apply (ie- meeting of the minds, definite terms, etc.)

Profit has nothing to do with it. Copyright is an exclusive right not predicated on an author losing out on profits. As far as buying a song/record/cd and making your own copy, that is allowable under fair use doctrines. Fair use does not extend to peer-to-peer sharing. And yes, cover bands (actually, the bar they play in) must pay royalties to the copyright holder. (See BMI, ASCAP).

It's all part of my rock & roll fantasy…

You can argue the differences between theft and copyright infringement all day long, but the truth is that you are still violating the agreement you made when you purchased the album, CD or DVD or whatever.

If you want to get picky about what the laws state and how they should be interpreted, then go ahead and argue it till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. People who make arguments such as these are only trying to find an excuse or loophole that will help ease their own guilt. An agreement is an agreement, and if you don't like it, then don't buy it.

It's not about theft, its about honoring your agreement. Be a man of your word.

Alot of what I hear is simply an assault on the eardrums

Don't be sick, Nick. Be cool, and learn something about the law. For example, theft and copyright are very, very different things. Learn the difference, and heal thyself of thy sickness:

Theft requires that the owner of something is deprived of it by the unauthorized removal of it from their possession.

So when something is copied, the owner is not deprived of its use. And when the item was shared, theft is even less clear. The analogy of choice is Jesus Christ sharing the loaves and the fishes with the multitude. The big guy only had a couple of fish and two breadsticks, but he was good enough to copy and share, and so everyone ate.

Imagine if one person in the crowd had accused Jesus of STEALING the fish and bread he created by understanding how to get around the DRM on such items?

I hear you say that would be outrageous, and I agree.

"A generation of entitled brats that justify their theft with bogus arguments of borrowing."

I sense your anger. Let me explain copyright law.

Copyright law, like other law, will only ever act as a remedy to restore you to the position you would have been in, had you not suffered a wrong from someone else. It is a commercial remedy, not a divine moral position to be enforced by the state.

OK? OK. Now what that means is that IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY…… and SOMEOBODY ELSE MAKES THAT MONEY BY COPYING YOUR STUFF…

… then you can say "Hey, that money should be mine! I worked for it, he got it. I claim it."

That is copyright. And so you can see, file sharing lacks the crucial element of PROFIT.

All those folks sharing information, none of them are profiting from it. No profit is being made by one party at the expense of another. Hence, the commercial remedy is not available.

What has happened is that technology has taken away the crucial market advantage held by those privileged enough to own record and distribution empires. Now anyone with a PC is a distribution and recording empire.

But it does not follow that the pre-existing recording and distribution empires have been WRONGED. Not at all. Their time ran out. There was nobody wronged when the technology to record music created these massively profitable PRIVATE BUSINESSES. And there is nobody wronged when technology taketh away such opportunities, placing them in the hands of the despised masses.

It is just technology moving on, and it has nothing to do with theft, or moral outrage. What you consider your righteous moral outrage is actually just vented frustration at the collapse of pipe dreams.

Let me break it to you gentle: Your music never was worth a damned thing, Nick. It was the distribution, marketing and copying technology that made the money.

Ask anyone in a cover band.

What I see as a problem, now that there is so much to upgrade in one go, is that there is no way to select what you wish to upgrade – it's all or nothing.