Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
The fact that they have not come close to legitimising the practice perhaps speaks to the intentions of the legislators. If that were assumed (pure conjecture on my part) then it would not be wise to read too much into court decisions to the contrary - since it may be the legislators intentions to close any loop-holes revealed by such decisions.
Of course the opposite could also prove true: they may decide that the current form of DRM is effectively useless (which is merely fact) and so there is no good reason to try and prevent its removal. ... But I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. The law, like my OP, attempts to deal with DRM as a concept rather than a specific instance, and the purpose of DRM is still desirable (by people wanting to protect their rights). So they won't want to weaken provisions too generally in case any more effective solutions arise.
|
Most people would have no objections to DRM if:
1.)The same DRM scheme would be used for every device.
2.)Customers would be protected in case their hardware broke down and they couldn't redownload from the original seller.
But coming back to your statements above. If you consider that legislators will be under constant pressure by industry lobbyists to tighten restrictions and make format shifting illegal, the fact that they have not expressly done so actually seems to demonstrate to me that they believe that this issue is very important to their voters.