So software tools to convert iTunes music to another format (say, to Microsoft’s DRM format) shouldn’t be illegal, but if Apple wants to track down and sue users who use such software, they have every right to do so. Of course, they’d never do that in practice because it would be a PR nightmare.

I should also mention that I’m not entirely sure how the Sony/Grokster line of cases ought to apply to circumvention tools. It might be that certain kinds of circumvention tools (such as a utility to decrypt your iTunes library and uploaded it to a peer-to-peer network) would fail the Sony and Grokster tests. But I think this is an area of law that ought to be allowed to evolve in the courts without Congressional interference, because I’m pretty sure that whatever rule Congress might come up with will be worse than what would emerge from a common law process.

One place a DRM “mandate” is definitely called for, though, is in the public sector. When bureaucrats mandate a DRM system, they’re imposing unaccountable, privatized regulations on people who have to communicate with the government. (But forbidding the government to do something shouldn’t offend libertarians.)

And unfortunately, that’s also why it won’t happen. The vast majority of people, no matter what their political leanings, seem to simply not understand state inaction as an option. Trying to explain the positive impact of inaction to people reminds me of college debates about atheism: many people simply cannot understand that the stance isn’t a positive belief system.

Read that sentence, think about it, edit.

Other than that, another fine rebuttal post.