Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I'm a bit late coming to the party on this one, but wanted to add a couple of thoughts.
The problem with discussing legitimate use is the implication that if we could agree on what was legitimate then DRM that makes that distinction is okay. Such agreement could possibly be reached, and it is not unreasonable for companies to try and protect their investment. But, even if that happened, DRM* is not okay.
The central point of the article is that for DRM to work effectively (not be easily removed) it must hide some parts of a computer from the owner. And, as Sony so clearly demonstrated for us, such mechanisms will quickly be taken advantage of by malware programs.
In essence the article argues: DRM = lower security.
This equation is pretty much built-in to the technical requirements of intrusive forms of DRM, so denying a user the right to remove software that makes their system less secure is something that law makers need to seriously reconsider.
* Using DRM in the same way as the article. DRM can also be used as a term that covers such things as watermarks, and other non-intrusive forms of protection, but such forms don't necessarily have the same impact on security as the article describes.
|
And thus we go from a "I should have the right to do whatever I want with my purchases" argument to a "DRM is already (or should be) illegal according to the rules for basic consumer security rights" argument.