Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Steve,
With respect, they don't have the right to set arbitrary conditions. Thats my point. There are certain conditions they can set and certain ones they can't (For example, a CD seller cannot tell a buyer that they cannot convert the contents of said CD for personal use). DRM is currently being used by media producers to try and use technology to accomplish what they can't accomplish via the law.
|
So far, every attempt to circumvent "fair use" laws has been shot down in court. As I said, corporations cannot circumvent fair use... but they do (unfortunately) have the right to set arbitrary restrictions that are within their legal purview. And it is up to consumers to respond with our wallets (in that case, by closing them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Lets look at it from another perspective. We all know copyrights are suppose to expire (whether they ever will or not in today's political climate is another story). If someone ever were to invent the perfect DRM scheme (not possible, but for the sake of the argument, lets assume it is), corporations could use it to ensure that no work ever entered the public domain ever again. Particularly since circumventing DRM, even to make fair use of a product is itself considered a crime.
|
How? A document in public domain can be accessed by anyone with access to public records, and new copies can be made. We don't need to over-react to the problem, it's certainly slippery enough as-is. We're discussing importance of protection vs profit, not ultimate fascist information-control.