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.
|
Anti-DRM
is the moderate viewpoint. It is DRM which is extreme, just as anti-copyright would be extreme.
DRM gives rights to publishers and resellers that effectively eliminate the objectives of copyright law to balance the public good while encouraging and protecting private enterprise.
Copyright law is, when done right, a balancing act between the public good and private benefit. But DRM has thrown things out of balance. It is being used to prevent artistic creations from entering the public domain in whole or in part, now or ever.
And it is not a good objection to say that public domain works are otherwise available, because in the future, they won't be. The economics of the situation will prevent it - and so will DRM, because when copyright has expired, it will still be illegal for anyone to provide the tools to strip the DRM off of the now noncopyright book.
DRM is not a copyright protection scheme. It is a copyright law elimination device, because its effect, in the real world, is (1) to prevent material from ever going into the public domain in a practical, usable way and (2) to, in practice, prevent fair use of material during the copyright period.
Not to mention elimination of the right of first sale, or any sale at all.