Bazza wrote:
There is a logical fallacy at work here.
Just because a person or business does something legally, that later becomes illegal, it doesnt mean laws were "skirted" or something sinister or sneaky was going on.
Coca-Cola used to contain Cocaine. It was legal. Then it wasn't legal. Coke wasn't "skirting the law" or somehow being sneaky & underhanded. The laws simply changed, and they changed.
The speed limit recently changed on a road near my house. I guess everyone who went 50mph for years were "skirting the law" and somehow getting away with illegal activities prior to the change to 40mph?
Actually coke WAS being sneaky and underhanded because they knew that cocaine was addictive. By the same token, just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. Hell if the music producers had to base all of their business decisions on what was morally right, they would have gone bankrupt back in the 50's.
As for Joe' comments, I may not agree with everything he says on this, but I have to agree with the selling the rights to the soundchoice catalog. A smart business person would have set aside money while they were making a profit, to set up shop in the uk for digital distribution where the laws are more reasonable. Before the import laws changed, they would have had absolutely no problem selling to the US and Canada, and after the laws changed, they could still be selling to the rest of the world just fine. And since single sales are still fine to import, a person has tons of ways to get around a site that is blocked in their country, so they still could have gotten sales from the US and Canada anyway.
Why would you want to limit your customer base to just one region if you have the opportunity to sell worldwide?
In my opinion, the whole Donna Boris fiasco was just bad luck, it could have happened to any business entity.
Just my opinion tho
-James