Re-downloading of electronically purchased music

[altoid]

I use Beatport.com and was about to re-download the few tracks I've bought on there (I want them on my laptop as well, and I was too lazy to use my flash drive), so I went to my library to see how to mark them all for re-downloading and found out something interesting: Beatport only lets you re-download tracks for up to 4 hours after purchase time.

Technical aspects of it aside, this got me wondering whether this was an acceptable policy or a straight-up slap across the collective face of all their customers.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like it's a rip-off. I see this as purchasing the rights to listen to these tracks and play them out. Those rights don't get nullified just because particular instances of these bytes disappear. This isn't physical media (like vinyl or CDs), and Beatport has no "inventory" that would get depleted with constant re-downloads.

The counter-argument (which I actually understand) is that re-downloading costs Beatport bandwidth, and thus providing the service isn't as cost-free as it might seem at first.

Discuss.

(I copied the tracks to my laptop via the flash drive in the end, so all is well in my world at the moment.)

 

[cmdrfire]

There's a big issue where many sellers of music online have got ridiculous DRM policies - usually involving a license file hosted on a server somewhere. Needless to say, if the company goes bust or changes policy, and the license server is unavailable, all your legitimately-bought music is rendered unusable.
Microsoft recently planned to close their DRM license server for MSN music (though they backed down I think), but this would mean that millions who either a) reinstalled their OS or b) bought a new computer would suddenly be unable to use their music.
The best policy is to only buy music that does not come with DRM (Amazon and Apple now sell DRM-free music, and there are many other sellers out there), or to go out and buy a physical CD and copy it yourself.

DRM only hurts consumers, and does nothing to stop the so-called "pirates".

 

[angrybaker]

what is this purchasing of music that you speak of?

 

[-wiretap-]

This is why I only download music that can always be re-downloaded and doesn't contain DRM. I also run a raid-5 array with all my data, and it's backed up remotely over the internet in another secure location with redundancy.

 

[Jsmitty]

what is this purchasing of music that you speak of?

exactly

 

[altoid]

There's a big issue where many sellers of music online have got ridiculous DRM policies - usually involving a license file hosted on a server somewhere. Needless to say, if the company goes bust or changes policy, and the license server is unavailable, all your legitimately-bought music is rendered unusable.
Microsoft recently planned to close their DRM license server for MSN music (though they backed down I think), but this would mean that millions who either a) reinstalled their OS or b) bought a new computer would suddenly be unable to use their music.
The best policy is to only buy music that does not come with DRM (Amazon and Apple now sell DRM-free music, and there are many other sellers out there), or to go out and buy a physical CD and copy it yourself.

DRM only hurts consumers, and does nothing to stop the so-called "pirates".

Beatport tracks come with no DRM - that would be unacceptable given their intended purpose.

It's all just kind of annoying, really. I know, I know, if I lost a CD I bought at Amoeba Music they wouldn't (and shouldn't) be overly inclined to replace it, but this is a bit different.

Oh well, I suppose it's handy that I'm pretty damn good about not losing my music.

 

[cmdrfire]

Allowing downloads for only several hours is still a weird form of digital-rights management...
There is no reason for them to do that tbh, as the bandwidth costs will be minimal.
As -wiretap- suggests, backup, backup, and then backup again.

 

[eurotrash.]

what is this purchasing of music that you speak of?

.