There should be limits on DRM. For example, a recent EA video game was released, and they proposed that every player in a family would have to buy their own copy. As far as I am aware, this never came to fruition, however in these tough economic times, asking a family of 4 to spend $60 each on a video game is beyond ridiculous. Additionally, suppose I get a game, and want to play it on both my desktop and my laptop. As long as I own 1 copy of said game, I should be able to play 1 instance in whatever way I want. However DRM looks to circumvent this by allowing me to play said game on only 1 computer. Or, if I have 3 xbox 360 consoles in different rooms for different reasons, same concept. Finally. Concerning music. I have 3 computers, 4 cell phones, an MP3 stereo, and my car stereo. It is far more convenient to me to leave the cd's in my car, and transfer mp3's across my other devices. Again, I am using my own media, on my own devices, that I bought a 'license' for. However, for example, Windows Media or iTunes DRM will circumvent this. One of my computers is a Linux computer. Not supported by either DRM type mentioned above. One of my phones is a Nokia. Again, not supported. Finally, my stereo is a CD player. If I can't burn a copy, I can't listen to it on my home stereo system. In all the examples above, this *should* be considered fair use, since I paid for a license to said media. As long as I continue to be the only user, fair use should qualify if I want to use the same license across multiple computers/devices. DRM is only damaging to the end user. It costs them money for extra licenses they shouldn't need, and results in useless lawsuits filed on behalf of 'copyright' owners that rarely represent the best interests of the artist or game developer.
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle #539814-00333
FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle