JD on EP

This post muddies and misdirects the issue with digital rights management: that, in the cause of shoring up obsolete business models, companies are using DRM to take control of their customers' hardware (often in ways that have not yet been established as legal) and to covertly infringe on citizens' legal right to fair use. If you don't acknowledge that DRM technologies have been, to date, used almost entirely for these illicit purposes, your arguments will never gain credibility with those fighting to protect fair use.

[jd sez: For the past few centuries, contracts have been used to define rights-management of someone's work. With the shift in emphasis from physical goods to intellectual goods, combined with the ease of re-copying digital bits, we've had rapid evolution of corresponding contract technologies to match. The fact that some initial implementations suck does not imply that no further work should be done -- no use damning the brush for an apprentice painter's mistake. Bottom line: I think *everyone* wants to judge how their own digital bits are used by others, and it's not just big-budget movie studios we're talking about here.]

I don't think DRM means 'digital rights management' anymore ('Digital Restrictions Management' expresses the concept way better). Who can argue against 'rights management'? But I think today DRM means 'rights management done wrong'. DRM is pure evil. DRM is humanity shooting itself in the foot.

Rights management, digital or analog, is inherently a good thing. 'DRM' is not.

Best regards,
Burak

[jd sez: Hi Burak, nice to see you, but in that case it sounds like an argument about a label, and I don't invest time that way. I agree "i wish my old computer's drive would recognize my new ipod" and such -- specific complaints about specific implementations can produce paths to change -- but when people stop at saying "drm is bad" I start by translating them as "bad drm is bad" and then I wait to hear the next part.]