In a free and open society, artists would be free to use any means necessary to protect their content - and consumers would be free to use any means necessary to crack the shit out them. If the consumer knows exactly what they're getting when they purchase a DRM-enabled device or protected content (e.g. no hidden rootkits please) then DRM is just an enabling technology - it allows a willing buyer to purchase a commodity from a willing seller. If the sets the price too high, or makes the constraints to burdensome, then the technology will die.
To those who have a knee-jerk reaction to dump on DRM I ask the following: do you prefer the current system, where private corporations can influence the FBI to - using your own tax dollars - bust you for exercising your right to free speech?
My opinion: if you don't want me copying your songs, then either build some real DRM, or don't sell it to me in the first place. It should be the media provider's responsibility to protect their shit, not the government.
Slashdot Mirror
In a free and open society, artists would be free to use any means necessary to protect their content - and consumers would be free to use any means necessary to crack the shit out them. If the consumer knows exactly what they're getting when they purchase a DRM-enabled device or protected content (e.g. no hidden rootkits please) then DRM is just an enabling technology - it allows a willing buyer to purchase a commodity from a willing seller. If the sets the price too high, or makes the constraints to burdensome, then the technology will die. To those who have a knee-jerk reaction to dump on DRM I ask the following: do you prefer the current system, where private corporations can influence the FBI to - using your own tax dollars - bust you for exercising your right to free speech? My opinion: if you don't want me copying your songs, then either build some real DRM, or don't sell it to me in the first place. It should be the media provider's responsibility to protect their shit, not the government.