Does DRM fit the crime, or is copyright crime just an excuse for DRM? The suggestion by some in a recent discussion that various forms of digital rights management are necessary to protect copyright holders met with a strong rebuke from one reader.
The reader wrote:
"While many things like copy protection and DRM are incorporated as purported anti-theft measures, the real objective is to limit the rights of legitimate users. Copyright law has a doctrine of first sale -- basically, the copyright holder has only very limited rights to control what you do with something that is copyrighted after you have purchased it. While some of this is about your fair use rights -- in reality copyright holders only retain those rights explicitly granted by copyright law -- they do not own copyrighted works, they own the copyrights. Copyright holders do not want you to be able to record TV shows and play them later, rip your own music and play it on your computer or in your iPod, or cell phone, or at least they do not want you to be able to do those things without paying them even more."
"Contrary to popular belief, most of the efforts of the entertainment industry are not targeted at stopping criminals but at preventing and criminalizing ways of using content you purchased that no one has even thought of yet. As to (those who) rant about criminals, there is no more crime today than 25 years ago. A significantly larger percentage of the population is spending a significantly longer amount of time in jail for less and less significant offenses -- the retail industry would advocate capitol punishment for shoplifters if it could, despite the fact that more retail theft goes out the back door than the front."
"Do not misunderstand me -- criminals need to be punished for their crimes, but blaming criminals for all kinds of changes that are targeted at finding new ways to bilk more money from honest people, is itself dishonest. Further what is wrong with corporate responsibility? Despite rhetoric to the contrary, product liability verdicts against well-designed products by reputable manufacturers are rare. The real threat is large verdicts against companies that market dangerous junk, or that decide the cost to fix a problem that kills or maims people is higher than the cost of killing and maiming."
So what do you think? Is DRM necessary to protect software and entertainment industries from piracy, or is its only real purpose to punish those who are exercising fair use rights? Post your comments on my website or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
Read and post comments about this story here.
12:23:01 PM 
|
