Originally Posted by Catlady
BoldlyDubious, I think that the source of the file is irrelevant. The person who uploads the file to a torrent or a file-sharing site is the one responsible; who cares where that person got the file in the first place?
This is how things are now. The results are: (i) people who upload files to file-sharing sites are almost impossible to identify; (ii) using this as their justification (or excuse), media companies subject everyone
to drastic licensing schemes which greatly limit what they can do with the files they purchase (or, more precisely, get a license to access).
Given that the current type of DRM can easily be removed, the system does not damage illegal uploaders; while it certainly creates absurd difficulties to users behaving correctly.
My proposal for "social DRM" (I don't think I have been especially original, certainly someone else already proposed something similar) aims at changing this.
This is done by giving to media purchasers both the freedom
to do whatever they want with the files they bought, and the responsibility
to choose wisely what they do with them.
One of the key points is that consumers would get to own media
, not licenses. Therefore, many reasonable things that are now difficult and/or prohibited would become easy and possible. To name just a few: backing up, lending to friends and family, changing reading device, leaving your media library to your sons and daughters when you die, ...