On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting about DRM
because it enables copyright holders.
DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".
Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.
DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.
When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever happens
nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to copy
and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, the goal
and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.
Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
under which the item is copyrighted. But typically it is either 75
years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of the
owner (author) of the copyrighted material. Both are much longer
than the Internet has existed.
If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, and the
DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, e.g. by
anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be *allowed* to
copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* to do
so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which would,
likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to DRM go
far beyond just objections to copyright.
Please show an example where that has occurred.