>> 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.

It's not removing the DRM itself, it's what you do afterwards (which 
presumably you couldn't do before - or else, why did you bother?)

> Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
> is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
> endeavours. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
> was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
> arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.

Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize 
artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the arts"??

>> You seem to be under the illusion that if you buy a copy of something it
>> gives you the right to use it as often as you want on as many devices as
>> you want.  If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.
>
> Licenses need not be legal.

> The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
> shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.

More to the point, if somebody buys an item, they reasonably *expect* to 
be able to do certain things with it (depending on what the item is).

If I buy a tune on CD, I expect to be able to play it on any CD player I 
possess. But if I buy a tune as a digital file, I can only play it on 
the PC I bought it with? I don't *think* so! :-P

Post a reply to this message