>>"More than one case has been proven that the 'AAs were wrong."
There is a pretty big difference between incompetence and a deliberate intention to suppress 'rights'.
If someone in the RIAA had been given a choice between suing someone who was
b) innocent (and quite possibly able to show it)
even if they were Evil, they'd have to be pretty dumb to choose the latter option, if only for PR reasons.
>>"Sorry, if I buy a record/CD/DVD, then I have a license to use the content on ANY PLATFORM I WISH. Lawyers might see it differently."
So you're claiming a /right/, rather than a legal license?
You can say you /think/ you should be able to use content you've bought on multiple devices, and I'd agree with that opinion, as would most people, but it's not some fundamental *human* right, it's still an opinion.
Even if it's generally seen as a *moral* right, that still depends how much someone is or isn't taking the piss.
If someone who lives alone buys a CD, it doesn't really matter how many devices they have a copy on, since they can only play one copy at a time.
Likewise for a couple, or a small family, it would seem pretty pointless to try and define limits.
However, if someone lived in a massive extended family on a sprawling estate, it would be pushing things a bit far if they could collectively only ever buy one copy of anything and then have lots of copies around the place.
How you'd actually write a law to say what someone had a 'right' to do, I'm not sure.
Do you try and rigidly define limits of sharing (one 'household, or X people, and/or some limit of relatedness? etc), and risk creating both strict rights *and* strict violations that seem unfair, or do you in the end leave it up to people to judge what they think is or isn't likely to provoke action, and what a jury is or isn't likely to see as a meaningfully bad action?
You could try and define an individual's rights, but beyond an individual it could get trickier, and how many individuals actually have action taken against them for having their own copies of their own paid-for content?