Maybe they (the critics of DRM) have not received as much press coverage, but they certainly have come up with very effective counter-arguments.

In particular, the ‘lock’ analogy is not a good one. Ed Felten makes the point of how important the picking the right analogy in a podcast interview “Silver Bullet 005 -An interview with Ed Felten” which you can find by Googling without much difficulty.

Ed makes the point that DRM is really deliberate incompatibility, and how strange it would be if someone wanted to design a special antenna for a TV that was incompatible with all existing broadcast standards, and then wanted that incompatibility to be protected by law. We then would find DRM very strange indeed, right?

I would actually take it a step further, and suggest that the “contracts” that the monopolies that controll media distribution are trying to force down everyone’s throat as part of a content download, should, as a matter of public policy, be made unenforcable. There is ample precedent for this in the many consumer protection laws which exist (for example ‘lemon laws’) where consumers, no matter what some large corporation may put in a ‘contract’ have certain well-defined rights.

The moral basis for such a legal impostion of contractual terms is the inferior bargaining position of each individual consumer, whose rights are protected through government action, government action which is derived from consumers interests, as articulated through democratic and transparent processes.

Maybe they (the critics of DRM) have not received as much press coverage, but they certainly have come up with very effective counter-arguments.

In particular, the ‘lock’ analogy is not a good one. Ed Felten makes the point of how important the picking the right analogy in a podcast interview “Silver Bullet 005 -An interview with Ed Felten” which you can find by Googling without much difficulty.

Ed makes the point that DRM is really deliberate incompatibility, and how strange it would be if someone wanted to design a special antenna for a TV that was incompatible with all existing broadcast standards, and then wanted that incompatibility to be protected by law. We then would find DRM very strange indeed, right?

I would actually take it a step further, and suggest that the “contracts” that the monopolies that controll media distribution are trying to force down everyone’s throat as part of a content download, should, as a matter of public policy, be made unenforcable. There is ample precedent for this in the many consumer protection laws which exist (for example ‘lemon laws’) where consumers, no matter what some large corporation may put in a ‘contract’ have certain well-defined rights.

The moral basis for such a legal impostion of contractual terms is the inferior bargaining position of each individual consumer, whose rights are protected through government action, government action which is derived from consumers interests, as articulated through democratic and transparent processes.

1. One of the obvious reasons that the downside of DRM has not been adequately exposed is that the mass media has a tendency to simply publish pro DRM press releases as submitted. For example, while the Sony BMG fiasco was in full swing neither the NY Times nor PC Magazine provided any truly informative articles. On the other hand, the Washington Post, I believe, did a good job of exposing the implications of the Sony Rootkit.
   
   

2. The lock analogy is good at the superficial level, if you don’t think too much. DRM technologies actually represent a “new” way in “protecting” supposed intellectual property. Basically it gives the content owner the right to break into your property and trespass for the purpose of preventing you from using it. Basically, the content provider can act in any arbitrary and capricious manner they wish while the customer is left defenseless.
   
   

3. The use of DRM technologies is superficially about preventing piracy and makes for good press. The undisclosed intent is to lock the consumer into a company’s technology. While this is obvious, I think, there is a hidden agenda, dirty tricks, for example. Companies use dirty tricks all the time, in this case, DRM technologies could be used to disable a competitors product.
   
   

4. Computers are extremely complex. The use of DRM, to a large degree, depends on the use of stealth and non-standard procedures. What this means is that DRM technologies are subject to the law of unintended consequences. Should a problem occur, the majority of users will probably not be able to fix their computer and will also be unaware of what caused the problem. I seriously doubt that a DRM program would actually inform the user that it caused a problem. Needless to say the cost of repairing your computer, reinstalling all the software, and manpower involved will be unfathomable.
   
   

5. In the end, DRM technologies will never work, past history demonstrates that it can always (at least so far) be hacked.