BoingBoing's Cory Doctorow makes the following comment on EULAs:
These "licenses" aren't about upholding copyright (if they were, you could replace thousands of words of lawyerese with four simple words: "Don't violate copyright law"). They're about overriding copyright -- which has all kinds of guarantees for the rights of book-owners -- with a private law that gives every advantage to the publisher or retailer, converting you from a noble reader to a wormy, contemptible licensor who doesn't deserve to own books.
Amazon (and iTunes and every other service that sells digital content) write EULA to override copyright, because copyright simply doesn't clearly cater for digital content.
That is the core of the problem. I'm starting to get annoyed that while many commentators agree that "copyright in it's current form is broken", they continue to use elements of it to argue their case for what they should be able to do with their digital content.
Guardian specifically complains that the Kindle EULA will not allow a user to sell or lend their digital books, lets Amazon take a purchased book from you at any time, and will not let them back them up to a different device or medium.
While I agree that not being able to backup your digital content is reprehensible, as is the ability of the seller to "unsell" your purchases from under your nose, I will never buy into the complaint that you are not allowed to sell or lend your digital content to another person.
The very nature of digital content means it is impossible to implement any kind of "lending" or "selling" of digital content without relying on a trust system where the seller/lender deletes what they have sold/lent, or by using some form of Digital Rights Management (DRM).
Trying to argue for reselling/lending purchased digital content buys right into the "content industry's" argument that buying a digital version of something is the same as buying a physical version of something. It simply isn't. When you buy digital content, you're not buying anything physical.
While I'd like to believe in the happy fairy-land where everyone respects copyright to the point they delete content from their computer they do not have rights for, I'd also like to own a panda. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry.
Trying to use current copyright law ("fair use", "First-sale doctrine") to argue your case for fairer digital rights is only going to fuel the RIAA court case fires and lead to "big content" taking over your Tivo and preventing you taping your favourite shows.
Non-physical content should be covered by entirely different rules. Rules that are actually enforceable (without the need for DRM) and fair.
Copyright law has been able to write for special cases in the past, as seen in the different copyright laws for "sound recording" vs. "musical creative works.
We need similar changes / additions to copyright which take the unique case of non-physical content into account.
Following this post will hopefully be a post about my thoughts of how a new copyright law for digital content should work.
Why the sudden backlash?
Britney need only blame Pink.
Pink visits our country and puts on a record breaking number of shows full of acrobatics, dancing and all while actually singing.
Pink massively raised the expectations of Britney's target market. You don't sing? You don't do your own stunts? You don't fill arenas 15 nights in a row?
In comparison to Pink's show, Britney's shows are lame. It's not her fault, someone better moved the goal posts.