View Single Post
Posts: 307 | Thanked: 157 times | Joined on Jul 2009 @ Illinois, USA
#72
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
The core philosophy of DRM is problematic as there is no "core philosophy." Some use it to ensure only paying customers access content. Others use it to try and implement transactional systems and rental services. The only thing DRM has is a goal, and that is to protect revenue streams.
I see those two use cases as the same. Please explain the difference you perceive?

Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
The grander goal of DRM is to monetize every and all uses of content. Move to a different device, charge a fee. Make a ringtone, charge a fee, etc. To grow the revenue stream and leave the end-user powerless.
Digital Rights Management. It doesn't imply some overarching capitalistic extreme. Its merely a tool to insure that only paying customers have access to what they should have access to. PEOPLE may USE it to implement these sorts of ideas. Then your malice should be directed at those people, not the tool.


Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Originally Posted by mmurfin87 View Post
The only real objection here can be when the DRM doesn't allow users to do what they should be able to do.
DRM is explicitly intended to do just that. It just so happens to break down every so often (technical failure, business failure) and deny users rightful access to what they own.
A perfect DRM system would allow people to do what they should be able to do. No more and no less. The question is can such a system be created? I am inclined to believe that it can, but I admit I don't want to be the guinea pig for all the iterations it may take to reach it.

Last edited by mmurfin87; 2010-06-26 at 17:50. Reason: added " to what they should have access to" in my second paragraph.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to mmurfin87 For This Useful Post: