With all the discussion of P2P , lawsuits, and downloading, I started thinking about the topic of DRM. I did some searching and didn't find any other threads on the subject, so hopefully this is the first!
If a company releases something digitally (a song, movie, audiobook, etc) to consumers, they may want limit who has access to that media. After all, they only want paying customers to access their resources. This is where DRM comes in. DRM helps by restricting access to content to those who are authorized to use it. It comes in many forms, from the basic cable TV and satellite decoders to more complex WMA and M4A music formats.
DRM does good things for commerce in that it helps facilitate transactions between customers and producers. It's also a stepping stone between having everyone purchase physical media (CDs, DVDs, print) and everyone downloading their content.
As with all systems, however, there are some "flaws." Many people report that DRM is too restrictive. People aren't able to do what they want with what they buy. In the old days, cassette tapes were analog. Copying one would automatically mean a degradation in quality. With digital media, making a copy means having a reproduction that is just as good as the original. DRM makes it harder for people to do this.
What are people's thoughts on this topic? Should DRM be more flexible for the end-user? Are people stuck in an older mindset where they could do practically anything without "repercussion"? Discuss!
