[Jaime_Astorga]

I think the problem DRM is trying to solve can be stated as "prevent unauthorized copying and distribution of books/songs/movies" (where the limits for authorized copying are left to the sensitives of the person in question). Does anybody object to this definition? And, if so, how do you think it should be modified?

EDIT: On a second thought, I just thought of a more specific way to phrase it. "Allow some entity (Alice) to prevent a second party (Bob) who is authorized to read/listen/watch an arbitrary book/song/movie [given to him by Alice] from copying this work as a digital file and distributing it to an unauthorized third party (Carol)". Of course, for practical purposes, authorization would consist of "lives somewhere restrictions don't apply" and "has paid for it".