>> 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