Something thats probably going to generate flames, DRM is something that seems to generate a lot of tension among open source advocates, I just want to play devil's advocate so I can hear new opinions about the issue. I don't really understand why DRM is seen as such a bad thing. DRM make is so AV files require digital licences to play them. So if a company works for months to generate a piece of media, decided on a fair price for it, and wants to make it available not only on CD, in theaters, or video stores, but on customers PCs as well, isn't that a good thing? That would be convenient for customers who might not want to leave their home, because of say, bad weather, or a physical handicap. If someone dosn't like it, there's no obligation to buy anything. Typically, the condidions being put on DRM protected material are so strict that customers are staying away. But it dosn't have to be that way, its quite possible for a company to use DRM in a way that give consumers a good degree of freedom over the media they download after they've paid for it. Perhaps a company could make a media with heavy restrictions that last a year after the initial release, but became free and open after that. DRM content can exist alongside free content perfectally well. Now I'm all against using draconian copyright laws to smash competition the way Lexmark did, or Adobe's poke at Elmscroft. I also think mandatory DRM tech into all digital devices is just plain crazy. I also think Fritz chips push the issue way beyond the limit, as DRM exists today and works fine without the hardware component. But I don't see why the current DRM is so bad, and would like to hear differing opinions.
:cool: V :confused: