>> Obviously they're not doing this on purpose, just that if there is some
>> tiny chance that people would rebuy, whereas without DRM they wouldn't,
>> then this would get factored in to the finances.
>
> I can't help it if they make bad or faulty assumptions in their pricing
> model.

Assuming people would follow the terms in the license agreement doesn't 
seem bad or faulty to me.  Anyway in this case it seems like there is 
little or no financial loss to them, but in other cases the DRM is key 
to being able to offer the content at a lower price (or even free, eg 
BBC iPlayer).  The problem is how to draw the line between what is right 
and wrong from a legal point of view?

Post a reply to this message