The selling point is that there's enough uncertainty and complexity in the process that many (most?) people won't successfully avoid charges for re-buying music.
The icing is that the mere existence of the complex, uncertain process insulates record companies from accusations that they're forcing people to re-buy music (as with the transition to CDs). Re-buying just happens to be the much more convenient option.
Apple can say they don't automatically copy over songs purchased in another region. Allowing you to "purchase" the songs again for free sounds like a workaround that the parent found. However you look at it it's not for the good of the customer.
Correct. The back door is already written in the terms and conditions. Have fun reading them. Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said, he never signs a contract that is longer than a page?
Steve Jobs could have said whatever he wanted without it being true.
The problem isn't in him saying it, the problem are certain persons who believe it and repeat the nonsense.
Steve Jobs may not have signed complex contracts. This does not exclude, that Apples layers make the customers sign complex contracts, does it?
Steve Jobs promoted the digital lifestyle, although he was a vinyl junkie and owned high-end audio stuff.
The point is, that the advice he gave about the length of contracts is good, unimportant if he followed it or not. It is useful for customers to follow and that does certainly not exclude apples customers (although, nowadays, you may not be able to buy a slice of bread, if you insist on short terms and conditions).
From parent:
> I know that if I remembered/knew which songs I bought, I could buy them again and it might not charge me a 2nd time
So if they don't charge you again, then what's the selling point for record companies?