More DRM in the news

August 28, 2006 Posted by mitch | technology | 0 Comments

Seems as if the infamous DRM is back in the news again. I have to say, I am not a fan of DRM, much like I'm not a fan of gun control as they're both from the same breed of illogical thought. DRM(digital rights management for those not in the know) like Gun control only prevents and causes problems for consumers doing legal things. The fact remains (and has been proven time and time again) those that wish to do ill and don't care for the "laws" such as those saying you can't circumvent DRM, and even those that say conviced fellons cannot buy guns (least I believe thats part of the current gun control laws). Will always find a way around it and continue with their ill ways. So I ask you, what part of DRM says it will stop music/software piracy? As I've always said, if you can play it, you can pirate it. Prevent people from playing it and you might be able to stop them from pirating it, but then you also stop people from wanting it as well. So, whats left? If only the people that are going to go about things the "proper" way, are the ones that buy whatever these media types say... then they'll believe that if they want to play a song in their car, in their house, and on their poratble device, then they have to purchase three copies. When the law (see Fair Use) says that if you purchase it once you can use it in all of these places.

Again, so who is the DRM for? Its not to stop piracy. I would even dare say that DRM (especially to the scale Windows Vista is going to take it to) will actually encourage more Piracy. Why? Why will so many current consumers turn to a supposidly "illegal" activity such as this? Media types are going to far, I believe people will eventually notice they don't like paying three times for the same thing. Who's at fault? Ultimately we the consumers are responcible for DRM, if we wouldn't have bought off on it, as a way to "make sure the artists get paid"(which is also one of the biggest lies in the industry), then we wouldn't be in the current situation. Secondly, the providers of this DRM are at fault. Microsoft (and even Apple to some degree tho they do get very minor props for giving alot more freedom[far from being actual freedom], considering the era, than anyone prior and since) certainly has enough clout to have said "No, we won't do it", however, that would only be looking after *THEIR CUSTOMERS* best interests... but I guess we can all figure out who's their real customers can't we?