[Francesco]

I agree with Alexander's original idea: DRM obstructs our rights. Well, I'm putting words into Alexander's mouth, I'm sorry.
Anyway, that's what I believe. And it's funny, but that made me feel like a renegado, until I read Doctorow's speech. Follow Ignatz' recommendation and read it, you've got nothing to lose: it's brief, it's really interesting and it's so funny... guaranteed.
In that speech I found that my position is not as extreme as I thought. I want my right to do whatever I want with my property -as long as I don't harm anyone- back. Right now I find that DRM-endorsers propangada is so strong that it's not only illegal, but immoral to get the contents (what you paid for) out of its technological/virtual package. I guess that's why DRM discussions divert into piracy discussions.
At this moment, circumvention is illegal and immoral... and EASY! Well, easy at least for the technologically somewhat-savvy (pirates included in the first place in this category). So, in the end, it happens that DRM protects digital contents publishers thoroughly against honest, moral and average users!
But now I'm stealing Doctorow's ideas, aren't we talking about copyrights, here?

So what's left? I think what we can do is to support "less closed" formats (as in Alexander's example), and wait to see how this ebooks business develops. After all, this is a very young business.
I was very worried about the future of ebooks, but Doctorow made me realise they far from disappearing. Just take a look at the Darknet, as he calls it.
Sony, MS, etc., might be very very powerful, but we are soooo many. They can't have the last word.

PS A correction. I said circumvention is illegal. Well, AFAIK, it's illegal only in some countries, like the USA, if any other. Wouldn't it be awkward to see the USA crawling back into stone age just because of megacorp lawyers? Alright, this is an exaggeration, but do you see my point? What will be the implications of this new policy?