Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
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.
|
I'm not a fan of DRM, since I don't think it has any real benefit beyond making publishers feel like they're doing *something*, however impotent. But I'm not seeing how you're making the leap to DRM as a copyright elimination device (unless you mean the DMCA?).