Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
What's wrong with DRM? Does the artist who makes the music not have a right to decide how you get to listen to their music?
If I make a CD and I (for some stupid reason) decide I only want it played on CD players... should I not have that right? I made it, it's my work. I should be allowed to decide how it's listened to.
For the record, I listened to Prentice talk about this legislation. He stated that the language of it gave people the wrong impression, and that the spirit of the law is to, in fact, give consumers the rights to use their iPods, Apple TVs, etc etc... and to protect those rights.
Whether or not they're fixing the language to be more clear, I have no clue. They cut to commercial and I got to where I was going, so I stopped listening to the radio.  |
Why is it wrong? cause its usually not listed on the package. You buy the product in good faith and when you get it home realize that... wow! i can't listen to this cd in the same way i listen to all 200 other cd's i've bought. Can't take it back - the package is open. So now because of some hidden DRM you are either forced to become a criminal and break the DRM or you've just wasted $25 on a nice coaster.
What is so bad about DRM? Well other than the limiting of your rights that has already been mentioned, look up the whole mess with Sony's DRM scheme that installed many many rootkits on people's computers.
DRMs are so flawed right now from a technical standpoint that its sad that there are companies that want to use them. Even if they didn't have the massive technical problems, there's still the issue of consumer rights.
edit: btw, trying to reintroduce this legislation cost the conservatives my vote. i was willing to (eventually) forgive and assume they had learned their lesson the first time it was defeated.
edit2: now that i take a closer look, there's nobody really good to vote for this time around. writing in rick astley it is then