Is DRM Intrinsically Distasteful?
jelton writes "If digital media was available for sale at a reasonable price, but subject to a DRM scheme that allowed full legitimate usage (format shifting, time shifting, playback on different devices, etc.) and only blocked illicit usage (illegal copying), would you support the usage of such a DRM scheme? Especially if it meant a wealth of readily available compatible devices? In other words, if you object to DRM schemes, is your objection based on principled or practical concerns?"
So, basically, you're saying that if God were DRM, would we be philosophically opposed to it?
;-)
Seeing as how this is Slashdot, I think I know the answer to that one.
And in any case, if DRM were God, if it was working right, we wouldn't even know it was working at all.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I've yet to see a DRM scheme that didn't interfere with legal uses and was remotely effective. If we invented a DRM scheme that only stopped illegal use without any negative side effects, then I would definitely support it. I would also support building a perpetual motion machine for everyone to fufill all our energy needs.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Isn't that what DVD John did?
My karma is in a nose dive
How we know is more important than what we know.
If I were to give you a 5 1/2" floppy right now, could you extract the data?
Depends on whether the media was still readable after I trimmed 1/4" off to fit it in a 5 1/4" floppy drive.
In this case, I prefer the word "spawned" over "invented."
Meh. DRM is always flawed in that the attacker is the same person you are showing the plaintext to.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.