@modulux @aspensmonster but I suspect that no songwriter will care if you change equalisation settings for personal use.
You said "maximalism" and I think it's key: it should be possible to respect authors' wishes without detriment to common good.
An extreme example is Spotify copyright laundering of music. To *me*, it is extremely unethical, and I would expect negative consequences to the common good.
@yo @aspensmonster Indeed I wouldn't, but copyright is often held by corporate entities, or where this is not directly allowed by law, the exercise of the exclusionary rights which it confers. Do I think that a musician will try to charge me for re-equalising their song at home? It sounds very unlikely. Their label, however; I wouldn't at all be surprised by something like that if it were legally permitted. It could be sold as a bonus.
Generally I think that corpus research has at least some justification on the common good. But that's so hazy that I think we can't draw this distinction successfully in law. Without continued data mining, certain things become either very difficult or impossible: updating spell checking databases, search engines, all kinds of very basic things.
@modulux @aspensmonster yes, but I think we should also try win-win strategies; voting with our pockets preferring to pay content with fewer IP restrictions, spending more time on sites that are not saturated with ads, etc.
For example: physical media (DVD) is not perfect, but is less restrictive than streaming services. Should we buy DVDs again? (I'm beginning to think so.)
@yo @aspensmonster Agreed. I do buy CDs whenever possible, for example. I admit part of it is the desire for convenience and autonomy on my part. I prefer to rip and keep my copies of everything locally rather than relying on streaming, which requires constant payments, and which might always disappear or become unavailable. I also prefer to choose which media player I use and how I get to things, rather than having to use a specific one.
