Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
No, I am saying that -in exchange for the freedom to really own my media files (NOT a license to them) and do whatever I want with them (including giving them to other people of my choosing)- I would accept to be partly responsible if I make a wrong choice and some of these people decide to illegally distribute my files.
No again. I'm saying that if someone breaks into my shed, steals my gun and I do not report that to the police and then uses my gun to commit some crime, I have a responsibility.
My point is that current DRM schemes take away most of the rights of ownership from consumers, with the "trick" of making them licensees instead of owners of the files they download. However if a file gets stripped of its DRM and illegally distributed, in practice the original buyer does not risk anything (even when she/he is the actual distributor). The risk is so low that this seems to be some kind of sport for some people.
I'm proposing to switch to a system of social DRM where consumers own the files they buy and are free to do with them whatever they feel appropriate; but in this system owners share a part of responsibility if their decisions about what to do with their files lead to illegal distribution.
It's the switch from being considered (from media companies) as irresponsible children to becoming responsible, adult consumers who have the right to decide of what they do with whatever they buy. Just as it is with physical goods.
+1. If your car has been stolen (or you have given it to a friend for the day) and it is being used to commit a bank robbery you don't automatically go to jail. But having the license plate the car can be traced back to you and then you have to cooperate and help the police to track down the next person in line. There is no assumption of guilt, but there is a trail that can be followed which might lead to the actual perpetrator.