Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Maltby
Hmm... DRM is a law now? It is a legal measure to insure public saftey, by limiting how
the product may be used or disposed of? I do admit that it resembles the "Child Saftey
Caps" that they put on old people's medicine bottles. We shouldn't complain about or
remove the DRM if it restricts our use?
Perhaps you mean it's a law like that which gave us the "low flow toilets" or shower
heads? Something else where the manufacturer has installed a feature to insure that
the consumer can't steal more than their fair share, of water, the thiefs.
Laws that regulate the use of a product generally don't put mechanisms in place that
make the product hard to use in other legitimate ways. Most, in fact don't come into
play until a crime is committed that harms someone.
You would have every right to pursue legal action against anyone uploading a copy of
your property, and bringing the theft to the attention of law enforcement. The use of
totally ineffective preemptive measures that restrict the use of your product, after the
sale, must be for another, hidden purpose.
Luck;
Ken
|
There was an article by Malcolm Galdwell in the New Yorker about how the introduction of child-proof caps on medicine bottles actually led to an increase in acccidental child poisoning. Parents were led into a false sense of security by the marketing, and that led to more bottles lying around in the open, which in turn led to more children getting their hands on them and opening up the 'child-proof' bottles.
Publishers are only fooling themselves into thinking that DRM works. It not only doesn't work, it also pisses off genuine customers who resent being accused of being potential thieves, which is what the implication of DRM is.