Perhaps he really has no clue that a DRM imposed by a company that no longer exists in a legacy media format might make it impossible to access information necessary to legitimate academic research... anything from a masters' thesis to a kid trying to find out what music in the early 21st century sounded like.
I think what you're missing is that without the legislation to back them up, DRMs are little more than an annoyance. A company may "impose" a DRM on us, but if there is nothing preventing a person from circumventing it or telling others how to circumvent it, who cares?
Maybe I'm almost on my own but doesn't anyone else think that expecting laws and legislation to protect people's privacy is a bit shallow? I don't like people reading my
email, etc, but at the same time I think it's silly to expect that simply asking people not to will stop it from happening.
I don't think it's a matter of protecting privacy. The 4th
Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure in order to prevent government harassment of an individual. I doubt it has anything to do with the airing of dirty laundry -- though it's a nice bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what you're missing is that without the legislation to back them up, DRMs are little more than an annoyance. A company may "impose" a DRM on us, but if there is nothing preventing a person from circumventing it or telling others how to circumvent it, who cares?