Slashdot Mirror
Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services
Ernest Adams writes "The BBC is reporting that the British Library is concerned about DRM's effect on its ability to make materials available to the public. Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this. Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to. Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent." We've discussed stories like this before.
Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this.... DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.
Article summary provided by the Department of Obviousness Department
We don't have "fair use" in UK copyright law, at least not in the sense it's usually used around here to refer to the exemptions in the US.
However, a small number of national reference libraries in the UK, including the British Library, have a special legal right to claim a free copy of works published in the UK.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The librarians are making some good points about further flaws in DRM. I'm glad to see the media finally starting to pick up on this and report stories about the dark side of DRM. Now if we could only get more mentions of it on THIS side of the pond, maybe people other than the technically adept will start to get pissed about DRM and force some change.
OK, not likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?
... they're a lot more influential than people realise. They do run their own special forces unit, which for no adequately explored reason conducts all its business in Japanese...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In the words of RMS, "DRM is theft!"
Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent.
:)
I would think that's where the people that enjoy breaking DRM protection comes into play. It would be nice to get a government sanction to break into content for the fun of it. Or at least I'm assuming it'd be nice for people that can actually do it
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
On top of that, non-slashdotters don't know and even care less than we.
Finally: even if everybody would boycott DRM enabled media, the distributors will blame piracy. It's a lose-lose situation in all cases.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
See, here's where we, the nerds and IT folk, need to work with the librarians and support them.
I had the priveledge of speaking with a librarian on a plane ride one time. While not particularly tech saavy, she was quite passionate about information freedom and privacy. It hadn't even occurred to me until that point that the librarians had been working for what so many of us had believed in for a long time. They were the Googles before we had Google.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this. Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to.
What does DRM stand for again?
Data-Retaining Miser? Data-Retention Misery? Data-Restraining Misanthrope?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright." Unfortunately, with today's draconian copyright laws, works NEVER will go out of copyright.
I wonder if any of the sony rootkits have made it into the music collections of libraries? Would the librarians even know to not stock those titles?
DRM asserts the rights of the content creator. Legislators need to spend a bit of time concerning themselves with the rights of the consumer who has licensed/bought the materials.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I was involved in some video Copy Protection Technology standardisation efforts in Europe and had to sit round the table with the MPAA. ANY attempt to bring an argument along the lines of "how do we put the copyright expiration date into the DRM metadata" was laughed at. None of the technology companies were interested in running with the idea either - the consumers rights could just go hang.
All part of life in the behind-the-scenes world of technology standardisation.
they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. Fortunately for us here in the US, works going out of copyright isn't an issue.
Stop! Dremel time!
"DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to."
I'm not sure I agree with this point of view. It seems to me that it's not a right to control material and copyright confers, but the right to legal protection from infringement on that material. If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?
That said, I don't really agree with that approach, I'm just not a fan of telling a creator what they can do with their creation.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.
It's a mute point, copyright will never expire anyway.I'm aware of that, but that's a US problem for now. The UK and the rest of the EU doesn't have this problem yet. (Wait till the EUCD comes out *sigh*) The situtation for Audio CD's is especially bad: I haven't seen red-book Audio CD's for ages at this side of the big pond.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright
ROFLMAO!!!!! a work go out of copyright? In this age? That will never happen again. Disney will see to it.
Surely the best solution here is a modification to the law such that any protected digital work must have an unencumbered version of the data lodged with the copyright libraries? This copy is for archive use only until the work falls into the public domain, at which point it is made freely available.
Artists are protected, execs still get the most important part of their wet dream, and most importantly, the public gets it's dues.
In recent years, I've read a number of comments from people in the publishing industry that mention a statistic: The average published book is read by four people. The contexts of the quote is usually that this is considered a problem, and Something Should Be Done About It.
;-)
One way to understand this is to think of the books that you own. How many of your books have been read by three or more other people? Probably none, right? So where does this supposed average of four come from? Right again - libraries. The publishing industry generally considers libraries to be a serious problem. Libraries pay for a book only once, and then they let anyone read the book. All those readers should have bought their own copy. If publishers can make this happen, they think it will quadruple their income.
One of the things going on with DRM is that publishers see a solution to their problem, in the form of software that will prevent anyone other than the purchaser from reading a book. The intent is to prevent public libraries from doing what they're doing. They're also looking at the possibility of making you pay a second time if you want to reread a book.
Most publishers aren't in business to educate their readers or to contribute to our culture. They are in business to make money. If they can't make money from a book, they have no reason to let you read it. They certainly don't want you to read a book for free.
So if you think libraries are an important part of our culture, you should also be thinking about ways to preserve public access to their content. Publishers think they will soon be able to end such public access. They'll probably succeed, unless steps are taken to preserve access.
(Of course, here in the US, most of the population hasn't been inside a library in years.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
RMS, as happens way to often, here has no idea what he is talking about. The word "theft" means something, and matters involving theft really never intersect the DRM discussion.
DRM isn't theft (RMS is wrong).
DRM does not prevent theft (the industry is wrong: copyright infringment has nothing to do with theft).
The sooner we get the word "theft" out of BOTH sides of the DRM argument, the better. This word needs to stand up against the wall along with rape, arson, murder, and forgery as having nothing to do with DRM matters.
I don't see any compelling reason to believe that any work created since the term "DRM" was invented will ever go out of copyright.
It may do more then harm them, in time it may elminate them totally.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As a defence of DRM, that would be fine... if the content cartels hadn't managed to get a law passed that makes the exercise of fair use not only difficult, but illegal.
Absolutely. The evil thing about the WIPO treaties' laws (DMCA included) is that they play lip-service to respecting fair use, but make it impossible to claim it. In the US, you are technically permitted to break the DRM for your own personal use (this is exempt under the DMCA), but you are forbidden from ever telling anyone how you went about breaking the DRM. This effectively limits legal fair use to advanced electronics and computer engineers who have a lot of time on their hands.
What I'd love to see (and I know I never will) is for copyright protection to only be granted to works that can be copied. If you publish a work (book, software, music, etc.) on a medium that permits someone to make copies, then you can legally enforce your "copy right" against anyone who infringes that right.
If, however, you publish something that prevents copies from being made, then you forfeit the legal mechanism that the government has granted you. You are taking the job of preventing infringment of your work out of the government's hand, and taking responsibility for that yourself. After all, why should you be given protection from illicit copying of their work when your work is "uncopyable"?
I know, it won't happen. It probably tips the copyright balance too far in the other direction. But dare to dream...
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
All Britain need do is pass a law that obliges DRM peddlers to make provision for the fact that copyright will expire one day {if there isn't such a law already}.
The fact that the DRM peddlers will ignore such a law is neither here nor there. The difference between "law abiding citizen" and "criminal", in Britain where most things are in fact technically illegal, has nothing to do with whether or not one has actually broken any laws.
When the copyright expires, if the DRM schemes do not include provision for this, then members of the public will automatically get the right to use reasonable force {like "fair dealing", it is ultimately for the courts to determine what constitutes this} to recover what is theirs by right.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I was recently in a room with a high ranking IT person from the U.S. Library of Congress.
He essentially said the same thing, but here is where it gets interesting.
He remarked (from my imperfect memory) "People don't understand the amount of money thrown at senators and congressman from media companies to get some favorable legislation. It's so political now that we've been instructed by the head of the library of congress to not comment on this issue, so you can see where this is all going".
This is scary. The LOC knows congress is selling us out, but they've been told to keep their big mouths shut.
One of the problems with fair use in the United States is that it's generally not considered a "right" per se. Most choose to look at it as an affirmative defense- that is, something brought up when you're accused of copyright infringement. It's all about the framing used to determine who has the burden of proof. If it's a right, then the people who are trying to affect your rights have the burden of proof. If it's a defense, then you have to prove that you weren't infringing copyright. The law itself mentions neither rights nor defenses- it just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.
Librarians are great allies to intellectual freedom issues, including those involving DRM. Look at the briefs that the American Library Association has filed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many librarians are also quite knowledgable about technology-related issues, as well as fun subjects like copyright.
Libraries have it rough with the increasing prevalence of electronic journals and DRM technologies. Even with material that is accessed online, there's a good chance that once the library stops paying for access, the patrons lose access to that materials- something that never happened with print journals. DRM and licensing are currently putting libraries between a rock and a hard place.
I think it should be illegal to put copy protection on digital works that are more than what could be applied to a video tape or a book (a physical ink on paper book).
Think Deeply.
Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.
The songs I've bought from iTunes tell me that I can transfer them to a total of x number of other computers. (Is it 5? I don't remember. Lets just say it is 5.) Well, if I get a new computer every 2 years, that means in 12 years from buying a song, I can't use it on my new computer any more. That's kind of bullshit. Obviously, their DRM is easy to get around (burn audio CD, rip audio CD) but who wants to hassle? Did anyone say allofmp3.com?
San Francisco Photographers
A better question might be, fifty years from now, will anyone have the technology to even access the works? Think how hard it is to play an eight-track, or even an old 45. If it's copy restricted, will anyone remember how it works? I'll bet no one is playing old WMAs in 2050.
This might be a huge problem if these copy restriction schemes fade into obscurity, people forget about the works and suddenly, decades later, they want to access them again. But then again, by then it might be easy to reverse-engineer these schemes.
Penny - plain text accounting
How many of your books have been read by three or more other people? Probably none, right?
Well, this isn't the case for me or most of my friends. A LOT of my books--especially the really good ones-- have been passed around my group of friends, until it's been read by most of them. Same with a lot of my friends' books. I mean, I think my copy of Hitchhiker's Guide has had some 2 dozen readers, over the years.
The caveat to this is that when my friends or I like a book enough, we buy it. That's how this sort of thing works. Hell, it's the premise behind the Baen Free Library. Not all publishers are stupid. One reason that I like Baen right about now.
Take business out of the equation. Hand over all publishing to the people. Set up a national publishing board that is elected by the public to oversee all publishing in the United States. The public would have a say in not only prices of published works but what kind of rights a purchaser is entitled to wrt to the published work.
The current system of industry cartels and collusion cannot be allowed to continue. We need to stand up for our rights as citizens and consumers and demand not only a free and competitive market for these works, but public oversight and control of the means of production and distribution and the rights of the consumers who purchase these goods.
Yes, if everybody would vote with their wallet, DRM would be dead on arrival and stay dead. Sadly that WILL NOT happen. Because:
And since it's really a numbers game, I suspect the net effect of DRM 'protections' will be to keep some obscure works out of the public domain, somewhere in the future. Works that nobody cares enough about to do the work and remove DRM restrictions from it. Popular stuff WILL get hacked.
With this in mind, I don't understand why executives even bother to slap DRM on everything. But hey, it's their loss, not mine.Yeah, but what about the artist? I mean, don't they have the absolute right to deny anything freak'in thing they've ever written, uttered or excreted from public use until every last penny has been wrung from it? I mean, com'on. We're not about knowledge or sharing. We're about money. More is better. To hell with bettering ourselves or others. Let's just get rich and crap on the rest of the world. Yeah, that's the ticket.....
you don't expect books to be written as barcodes in the future as we get bionic eyes with built in decryptors as seen in ghost in the shell?
I was the coauthor of a technical book, "Using Samba", published in the United States and Canada by O'Reilly and associates. Despite being made available electronically for no cost, the book was the outstanding seller in its class, and made me substantial royalties.
The History of "Using Samba"
This book was published without any form of explicit DRM, in a format suitable for printing from personal computers, with no limitations on distribution of personal printing, and with a license reserving only commercial printing rights to the publisher.
There was an implicit form of rights management, in that only commercial printers have equipment capable of printing and binding on sufficiently thin paper to make a manageable book: if printed on conventional photocopier paper, the book is over three inches thick. Printing small sections for reference on photocopier paper is perfectly practical, but large-scale printing is not.
This effectively reinforced the reservations in the license: printing for profit is both illegal and impractical, but personal printing, excerpting and copying is unrestricted.
The net result is that the book was widely used as a reference, and the on-line readers bought the physical book for its more convenient form in great numbers. O'Reilly has since published a non-trivial number of other books in this manner.
How copyright deposit libraries should deal with DRM issues
Copyright and other deposit libraries, such as the National Libraries of the U.K., Canada and the United States should seek and retain unrestricted copies, offering suitable statutory protection to the authors or publishers.
Upon the expiry of the copyright, the deposit libraries should make the originals available for a nominal fee.
Upon the failure or discontinuance of a DRM scheme, the publishers should retain the option of republishing under a different scheme under ordinary copyright law.
On cessation of publication, the copyright should by statute continue for no less than seven years. After this time, upon request by a member of the public, the copyright deposit library should advertise that copyright is deemed to have lapsed, and that it will offer the unrestricted copy within no more than one year. A copyright owner may then give notice that they have in fact recommenced publication, and if so the copyright deposit library shall advertise that fact and not release the unrestricted copy.
davecb@spamcop.net
DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to. Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent.
Of course, it seems unlikely that there is anything out there - or likely to be - that couldn't be cracked. But here's a question: something only exists as a DRM protected file. Its copyright expires. The DMCA is still as it is today. Is it still illegal to crack the DRM on this file?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
We need more pressure from the government on these crazy DRM schemes that are a) illegal as described, b) harmful to consumer's equipment, and c) EVIL!
Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.
That's not much of a problem. As Disney has so carefully demonstrated, that will never, ever happen for any copyrighted work that has been published since 1928. The real problem however:
Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent
This will happen a lot sooner than the copyright will expire. Like in maybe 10 or 20 years. And not just that the software might not support old DRM formats (remember, they'll be producing new ones every 6 months because hackers will always find a way around them), but what about the hardware? Will it work in 15 years? Will someone be there to make replacement parts in 15 years? DRM is all about tying one electronic copy to one device at a time, whether it's a PDA-style book reader or a PC. But the whole point of electronic formats is reproducability so that you can prevent data loss (among other things).
The Disneys and Sonys of the world don't give a rat's ass about whether a historian can understand our culture (and by extension, their own) in a hundred or six hundred years. They care only whether or not they can make money this year.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
"losing" or losing your key can make you face jail time if the Home Secretary or police want encrypted data.
It would be insteresting to see if this was ever used against the BPI et al...
When I was younger, the library in my town had a lot of Bob Denver and classical music that I wasn't interested in at the time
"Skipper!"
"Little Buddy!"
"Skipper!"
"Little Buddy!!!"
Maybe current copyright laws should be adjusted, to redefine what exactly is meant with 'to publish' a work.
Let's use an analogy - compare 'publish a work' with 'throw it out on the street for anyone to grab'. If you throw something in the trash and put it out on the street, it's fair game for anyone to go through that trash and take what they find. It's hard to claim something is still yours after you threw it in a dumpster, and watched others take it away.
Now suppose you throw out an 'uncrackable' safe, with interesting stuff inside it (DRM-protected work). Anyone is still free to grab and try to crack that safe, but can you -legally- claim that throwing that safe on the street is the same as throwing its contents out on the street? If you throw out (distribute) a DRM-protected work, did you really 'publish' the contents inside the DRM envelope? As for a 'public right to know what is inside': that is bull. Everybody has the right to lock their own stuff away in a safe. Until you take out that contents, and show that to the world, did you really publish it?
It would be useful if the law would clarify that distinction.I am an etwork admin in a library. Many libraries have cd and dvd repairing machines (the professional kind) so all it takes is to let them know that a cd is scratched. Second Atleats the libary that I work in has a bigger dvd collection then probably the local blockbusters and holywood videos. This could harm many libraries because people dont read books anymore. Libraries depend on free computer and wifi access and the cd and dvd takeout. Oh trust me the riaa and mpaa will hear about it.
Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright.
Except the DMCA doesn't really address copyright - it seems, rather to be an extra-copyright protection.
I could claim DMCA protection even on information in the public domain.
And the DMCA doesn't have any provision whereby its protections cease after a number of years.
See 1201(c)(1). Were the protections of the DMCA to fall under "copyright", the protections of the DMCA would be rendered inoperative by this language. The only way to read 1201(c)(1) consistently with the rest of copyright law is to read the DMCA as to not be discussing copyright.
Publishers that use technological measures to restrict use of their content end up restricting fair use. Since they aren't holding up their part of the copyright bargain, they should not be entitled to copyright protection. That is, once their technological measures have been cracked, you should be able to copy the content freely.
Conversely, publishers that choose to publish without technological restrictions should be entitled to full legal protection of their copyrights (although there should be some minor reforms, like a registration/maintenance requirement and a 20-40 year limit).
I'm sure these guys will be squarely on the opposite side of that table with plenty of cashola in hand to boot.
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2005/05-250.html
However it shouldn't be illigal to break it. Arms races are generally a good thing. Besids the technology itself is interesting to play with.
great... except that, as things stand, you'll wind up expiring before the copyright does; what's the point?
With the Supreme Court having said Congress can authorize perpetual copyright so long as it's done a finite number of years at a time, the copyrighted work will turn to dust before the it goes out of copyright.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
if the work goes out of copyright, someone can just get it for free anyway. they don't need to worry about their DRM'ed copy
Well, I see numerous people reading manuals, novels, albums and whatnot in major book sellers. These people are not being kicked out. Some read, some drink coffee, and some are there to meet with and collaborate on projects with others. Ideally, I suppose, one of these visitors to the store will buy something or cause to show up someone else who will buy something.
But, suppose the book distributors decide to shrink wrap paperbacks the way some CD-content can be found. It suddenly will be hard to read a book. Even if we ignore rampant, illegal or "public-service" copies floating around on the Internet or copied and dropped off in places, people will just tear the wrappers. Those wrappers cost money and at SOME point, to save costs, the distribution system will dispense with the wrappers. Maybe the price of books will come down, just to tease readers into becoming purchasers.
Many books I buy are of a narrow range of topics at times, and then many are impulse purchases. I rarely use an on-line review to influence my purchases. Actually, when I read some of the reviews **after** I have finished a book, the damned review is nothing like the book's contents.
I suppose if AUTHORS use the technology fate has provided them, they could create their own distribution teams and houses and dispense with the existing structure. Of course, the stores will balk since they won't get bulk, cheap copies, and may not have the ability to return unsold materials.
Well, maybe there are TOO many books being displayed. I wonder what markets these books make it into (other than secondary, reduced-price). I wonder if they are shredded, pulpled, and recycled.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's quite easy...
m + 5 = length of copyright in years, where m equals the current age of Mickey Mouse.
So the whole "what about when copyright expires" spiel is a read herring (pun intended).
The answer to that would seem to be no, as the dmca only applies to copyrighted material.
Under your interpretation of 1201 and foreign counterparts, it's legal to crack Charlie Chaplin DVDs and to make and sell circumvention devices that work with Charlie Chaplin DVDs. Under another interpretation, as long as a given DRM format is in active use to restrict even one copyrighted work, it's illegal to make or sell circumvention devices that work with such a format. Courts haven't yet clearly stated which interpretation they will apply.
First for video there is a program out there called FRAPS it is designed to record video games and produce video. Well it also records anything playing in a window, so all it would take is to launch it into Windows Media Player have the correct license acquired and then start recording.
Nope. If a particular file being played in Windows Media Player has the maximum digital restriction bits set, then it will only be played through a Protected Video Path and only through signed video drivers that Microsoft has verified respect the Protected Video Path. Screenshots will show a blank video window. This technology is already in Windows ME and Windows XP for audio and will be added to Windows Vista for video. Files with the protected-path bits set will refuse to play at all on earlier operating systems.
Generally, the owners of such works that are still interesting are "remastering" them
Too many digital CD remasters published by their have extremely harsh limiting (dynamic compression) to make them sound louder on a portable stereo but which takes all the punch out of drums and squeezes the whole mix together.
Of course, they claim it isn't the 60's release, but that the "remastering" lets them renew the copyright because it is a derivative work, not a copy.
Don't be so sure. Unless there's substantial original input into an adaptation, then no new work is created under United States law. The Supreme Court has ruled that sweat of the brow itself is not originality in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ; see also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. .
When you print a copy of a Public Domain work, like Shakespeare, the copyrights are blasted all over it.
Only because most copyrighted editions of Shakespeare that I've seen in university bookstores have commentary blasted all over it too.
With the copies of older songs released on newer formats, it is always claimed that the new release has a new copyright for the content, even though it may be in the Public Domain
The claimed copyright is often on a compilation of singles into an album and on the album's new cover art, not the recorded singles themselves.
Oh, and under current law, breaking the DRM, even on something in the Public Domain is illegal.
Could you point to the specific court case establishing this interpretation? If it was Universal v. Reimerdes, as I suspect, could you quote the part of the opinion that you refer to?
the copyright law stands on the premise that eventually things will get back to the public where it rightfully belongs.
Copyright Act of 1976 added 19 years. Bono Act of 1998 added 20 years. Do you see where the mouse's senators are going with this?
ANY attempt to bring an argument along the lines of "how do we put the copyright expiration date into the DRM metadata" was laughed at.
They were laughed at because the same people who were behind the DMCA were behind copyright term extensions at least in Europe (1993) and the United States (1998). The goal was to pick some remote region that had an absurdly long copyright term (Bavaria was among the first to adopt life plus 70) and then "harmonise" it to the rest of the developed world. Once the developed world is up to life plus 70, the next step is to "harmonise" to Mexico and its life plus 100.
Because eventually Microsoft will release a version of Windows that won't run without it.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Digital Rectal Manacles
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
US Constitution (GWB toilet paper) Art.I, sec 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings..." Unexpiring DRM intrinsicly violates the "limited Times" provision. Unbreakable DRM clearly breaks the letter, the intent and the fabric of the US Constitution and its foundational basis. INAL, I am a literate US citizen.
Though I doubt it's ever going to be implemented...
But you could just require that if a company wants to distribution something with DRM they also provide a DRM-free copy to the Library of Congress or similar entity, that can be stored until the copyright expires (heh, like that will ever happen...) and then be made available to the public.
Of course, you have to take steps to ensure that whatever medium it's on is actually readable 100 years from now...
Physics is good
The songs I've bought from iTunes tell me that I can transfer them to a total of x number of other computers. (Is it 5? I don't remember. Lets just say it is 5.) Well, if I get a new computer every 2 years, that means in 12 years from buying a song, I can't use it on my new computer any more. That's kind of bullshit.
You're an idiot.
There's no limit on the number of times you can transfer a song. The rule is you can't have more than 5 computers authorized to play the song at any one time. So unless you plan on keeping all 6 of those computers and expect to be able to play your iTMS purchases on all six ou wont have any problems. You simply deauthorize your old PC when you get your new one. And to answer your next question (since I can tell you haven't really bothered to read the user agreement) you can deauthorize a computer even if you don't have access to it any more (like it got burned up in a fire, the HD failed, ect). So even if you forget to deauthorize your first five PC's when you get the sixth, you can access your account information from iTunes and in one click deauthorize the other machines and get those five slots back (this feature can be used once per year). Or you can send an email to Apple and they will deauthorize them for you.
How the hell is this offtopic?!?!?!
Public domain works are being DRMed by online ebook vendors. A copy of Poe's works, downloaded from an online ebook store bore the following notice as well: "NOTICE: This ebook is licensed to the original purchaser only. Duplication or distribution to any person via email, floppy disk, network, print out, or any other means is a violation of International copyright law and subjects the violator to severe fines and/or imprisonment. This notice overrides the Adobe Reader permissions which are erroneous. This book cannot be legally lent or given to others. " So apparenlty, you can not only DRM ebooks that should be public domain, but you can also claim a copyright on them too.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.