I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented.

Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased.

I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux this week) other people using proprietary software does not much bother me.

There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).

I mostly agree with you, and I think we are largely on the same side, but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different. That said, I would be very happy if there were no DRM in the world, and I would just go to the movie theater to see new movies.

I was the featured Creative Commoner many years ago, and I appreciate a world where Creative Commons licenses are used and mostly libre software is used, but while I can afford to release a book under CC, which I have done a few times, a movie studio that drops 100M making a film can not use CC.

The problem is that DRM is incompatible with an open computer, and leads us to the situation we are on mobile, where users can't control their computers at all.

Content producers have the right to rent their content. They just don't have the right to cripple the entire economy and everybody's infosec doing so.

> but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different

Why? Genuine question.

DRM doesn't save new movies from piracy - new releases still hit the public torrent sites extremely quickly (sometimes before release).

And I don't understand what CC has to do with DRM. One is an intellectual property license, the other is a bucket of suck that categorically cannot work if users are to be allowed control their own machines.

I don't think it's really different. I don't think DRM have ever prevented any content from being freely available on the internet, they merely annoy legitimate users who paid for it (or would have paid for it if the content had been readable on their system)

I think mark_l_watson has a point, when it comes to renting or streaming content DRM is the publisher's method of control. It's when I purchase a single player game that is online only that I get angry.

Renting doesn't excuse the overreaching nature of DRM however, and its usage of presumption of guilt. I.e. such level of control is still unacceptable. Besides, all that is purely theoretical in case when the rented digital product isn't available DRM-free for purchasing (which can be pointed out to as an option for those who don't want renting). And in case of video, that's exactly the situation. I.e. it's not DRMed because it's rented, it's DRMed because they just want to always DRM it.

Out of curiosity, what's your proposal for enforcing rental contract business rules on a viewer's device?

Content providers see DRM as an implementation of a movie ticket system. You know, walls, doors and a doorman that kick you out after the movie is over. Also far from honour system.

See below. In reality, this DRM has nothing to do with rental, because you can't buy same content DRM-free anyway.

And nothing should be "enforced" on user's device. It's user's, not anyone's else. Your analogy with the movie theater is invalid, because there you visit, and leave when it's finished. Here it's your private [digital] space, and no DRM junk should have any business violating your privacy for any kind of enforcement purposes.