Comment DRM has two types of users (Score 1) 374
DRM has two types of users: consumers and producers. If the DRM technology is proprietary AND it is a standard, then the owners can limit supply, thus harming consumers and other producers. I suggest that the very legitimacy of DRM requires that it utterly level the playing field between producers. This affirms free market principles with all the attendent benefits to consumers and producers. When we standardize on a proprietary technology, we are killing progress in that area. What makes that acceptable? If we standardize on a proprietary DRM that not only kills DRM development, but also kills producers of the content it is purported to protect, then it is a fraud. Plain and simple.
Just as proprietary DRMs should not be criminalized, neither should they have the power to criminalize. We have a well-established legal precedent that allows us to reverse-engineer that which is not patented. Patent protection is a well-conceived means to balance public and private interests. To criminalize the act of reverse-engineering is to admit that the patent process is not sufficient.
The legitimacy of Law is directly proportional to the consent and involvement of those subject to it. The same can also be said (in a free society) about enforcement.
No legislation without representation.
Just as proprietary DRMs should not be criminalized, neither should they have the power to criminalize. We have a well-established legal precedent that allows us to reverse-engineer that which is not patented. Patent protection is a well-conceived means to balance public and private interests. To criminalize the act of reverse-engineering is to admit that the patent process is not sufficient.
The legitimacy of Law is directly proportional to the consent and involvement of those subject to it. The same can also be said (in a free society) about enforcement.
No legislation without representation.
