|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
>> them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
>> at the extreme hiring DVDs).
>
> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
> that removing DRM does harm.
Ermm, the BBC makes a huge amount of profit from selling programs to
foreign broadcasters and content on DVD. Anyone who removes the DRM
from iPlayer programs is one person who will be much less likely to pay
to watch that content again. I'm not saying everyone who removes DRM is
doing harm, but some are - the ones who would have otherwise paid again
for the content, either directly or indirectly.
The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free)
when you bought the material, would they make as much money? It seems
like almost every publisher thinks they wouldn't, which is why they
don't offer such an offer, and actually *spend* a lot of money to try
and "improve" the DRM. Surely they are not all wrong?
>> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use. If you were
>> then you'd likely have to pay more.
>
> You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
> it.
It's obvious if you think about it though. At the extreme when you rent
a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively
small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are
allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for. It would
be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any
personal use. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |