The great p2p debate rages on with many fronts. The record companies try to convince us that we are depriving the artists of income, while p2p advocates claim that sharing promotes sales. My main question is what are you actually buying for when you pay for a CD?

Do you get:

  • A piece of plastic laminated aluminium to do with as you please (i.e. a purely tangible piece of property),
  • The same piece of aluminium in plastic with rights to use the information it contains (i.e. The tangible product gives rights of use of the intelectual property to its owner) or
  • The right to access the information only as the record company authorises (i.e. an intellectual product that is bound to its tangible medium)

A lot of people I know treat it like the first: do as they please. The record companies try to convince us that the last is the correct interpretation. Thank goodness someone in the New Zealand public sector has some common sense. The format shifting rule is a winner in my books.