Quote:
Originally Posted by doreenjoy
there is such a huge anti DRM bias on this forum that there isn't even room for moderate viewpoints.
|
It's true, but it's because so far DRM has been implemented only as a
restriction on the
reader's rights instead of a
protection of the
author's rights.
As I wrote it before, it's not that DRM is such a bad idea: I see good reasons for it and it's perfectly legal and right. And by "right" I mean that it is right to do it!
But ever since DRM has been out, and it goes waaaay back to when DRM was first applied to digital music, people has only seen
their rights hindered, not the
authors' rights protected: you couldn't have your mp3 on more than one device, you couldn't make "safety copies" of your music (in case your hard disk failed), you couldn't listen them on a different device than your iPod (in case your iPod broke or you lost it)...
And note that all these things were possible when we listened to music on old cassettes and discs: suddenly, without an explanation, it became not only impossible (or better, hard to do if you weren't a little tech savvy) but also
illegal.
After years of this, I can see why people grows angry against DRM, and does not differentiate between the good idea behind and good reasons for DRM and the bad implementations that we had so far.
It's sort of like
monarchy: to have a king instead of a president and a parliament is not a bad thing
per se; but it takes just a few bad kings, one after the other, to make people hate
monarchy as a system and make a revolution, setting up a different government.