http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2567

Talk about hardware, who owns it, and who should get to control it (IE: who decides what software can be installed on it: the owner or the manufacturer).

The conversation about purchased/licensed music or software is an entirely separate conversation that should remain separate in our minds. It is all too easy to have politicians get confused when a number of unrelated issues are mixed together. They will then worry about the rights of the copyright holders (of the music or of the software), forgetting about the rights of the owner of the hardware, and we get right back to the mess we are in today.

No, you are right. that is in effect the same what some Dr. Thorsten Braun of the IPFI (the RIAA under different name) is saying on a german “FAQ” site:
[...]
Wem gehört die Musik auf einer CD?

Wer eine CD kauft, erwirbt nur das Sacheigentum an der Plastikscheibe, nicht etwa auch die Rechte der Autoren (Komponisten und Textdichter), ausübenden Künstler und Hersteller. Grob vereinfachend kann man das mit der Miete eines Autos vergleichen: Als Mieter bekomme ich zwar einen Schlüssel und darf das Auto vertragsgemäß bewegen, aber natürlich nicht weitervermieten oder gar verkaufen.

Dirty Translation with a little help from google:

To whom does the music on a CD belong?

The person that buys a CD, acquires only the special property at the plastic disk , not also the rights of the authors (composers and text poets), exercising artist and manufacturers. Roughly simplified you can compare that with the rent of a car: As a tenant I get a key and i am allowed to use it as stated in the contract but of course not rerent it or even sell it further.

“http://www.ifpi.de/recht/kopieren.htm

So if YOU are really giving 10$ away since January 2004 for the right to own a tiny piece of Makrolon® made by german company Bayer worth only a few cents, then allow me to say not much intellectual property in your case that needs protection by IP laws (no real offence intended)

Bullshit.

There’s no such thing as intellectual property. Merriam-Webster says that “intellect” is “1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed”

How can you assign property rights to knowing or thinking? Do you own your thoughts? Can you purchase thoughts from someone else? M-W says that “property” (the related definition anyway) means “2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title”

Let’s link this together. “The capacity for rational or intelligent thought that is owned or possessed.” “The capacity for rational or intelligent thought is something that someone has the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of.” “The capacity for rational or intelligent thought to which someone has a legal title.” Makes no sense, correct?

M-W defines “intellectual property” as “property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; also : an application, right, or registration relating to this”

Property that derives from the work of the mind. What’s property again? “Something owned or possessed.” By this definition, IP can apply to the CD, but not to the music it creates. You can’t own or possess music. Likewise, you can own the canvas a piece of art is painted on, or the comic book, manga, poster, whatever…but the image itself is not tangible, and therefore doesn’t meet the definition of property.

The CD is property. The music, images, video, and other constructs are not tangible and therefore aren’t property. Therefore, IP as used nowadays is a misnomer. If you hand me a book, you’re handing the container of the story, not the story itself. But it doesn’t cost $10 to manufacture a plastic disk with a stamped pattern in it. If I’m paying $10 for the CD alone, not the material that using it creates, then I’m getting ripped off and I want my money back.

Thanks for listening to me while I dump my erratic train of thought on IP. Most of it’s probably wrong.

It’s like when i run gnu/linux on my linksys router, or on my ipod. I bought the hardware, and i should beable to run whatever i like on it period. Torvalds’ is clearly in the wrong in this argument.

That’s another thing with intangible goods like music/software. They expect to charge you the equivilent price of a physical product, yet you don’t actually own it, instead you are licensing it from them.

If you license a physical product like a car, you wouldn’t expect to pay the actual price of the car just to rent it would you? Thats exactly what these people are doing. It’s all about control, and they have the laws designed in their favour.