Dear NicoV:
I am against DRM because it goes too far. It isn't digital rights management, but access control. If I buy a movie, say on a DVD, I should have the rights to view that movie using any means I choose. If the movie later comes out with higher resolutions, I should automatically the right to have that for free or, at most, media costs. With downloads, there are no media costs. I have the right to move it onto any media I choose and can use any method to play it on whatever I want it played to. If I want, I should be able to skip past advertizing and any other part of the work and go straight to where I want. And if I want to sell the work to another, I should have to go through everything I have and delete or remove all copies of it or deliver them to the purchaser.
That is true DRM which not one of these implementations satisfies except the totally unlocked ones. Every implementation of DRM doesn't take into account the rights of the users, just the makers. No DRM should be allowed that over restricts usage. Any that do, should be ruled illegal and any things they protect should become public domain at once.
Pete
PS: It should be a requirement to hold a copyright to maintain pristine copies for when a work goes into the public domain, it is completely available. Once it does, the costs of keeping those copies will be borne by the public, usually in some government repositories at a minimum. |
