My hardware however is not theirs, it's mine. I should have the same property rights to my property as they should have to theirs. Goods that still are controlled by the manufacturer has thus been designed to infringe on my property rights after ownership has been transfered. It is wrong, and should be illegal.
DRM is a technical design to corrupt property rights. The actual owner has none of the rights in "Bundle of rights"¹. One losses any of the control associated with property rights². It removes the concept of private property in ways we should never allow. It is simply a worse crime in history than eminent domain, mostly because everyone nowadays carries it in their pocket.
Lets not forget that people were seriously wondering if "jail-breaking" their iPhones is illegal or not. Thats how far it has gone. Its a disgrace to anything that a democratic liberal society is.
What is next, you are not allowed to run a certain program on your devices? Then it will be illegal to access certain web-sites with your devices. Then perhaps it will be illegal to have read a text on a print-out. Watch out, citizen, what you are writing is illegal, you are not allowed to do that!
Remember Eben Moglens talk on the war against general purpose computing.
All of these national level DNS website blocks were sold as kiddie porn blocking.
That's what software licensing decides. I can have perfectly valid executable binaries on my computer but if I don't have a license to use them, then it's technically illegal to ./execute
I was saying that more in the context of oppressive regimes, sorry I mean safe democratic governments, that some programs are illegal to write.
It's a mistake to think that content creators are in the business of selling bits and bytes, and then complain about not being allowed to trade those bits and bytes as you would physical property.
The reality is right there in the name: it's called "intellectual" property. What you think you paid for, the disc or the bandwidth or the bits, is simply the medium used to deliver that which what you really paid for.
Yes, there is.
> There are exclusive rights, given by We the People, , and not for any other reason than to advance science and the useful arts.
No, they're given by Congress. The power to give those rights is given to Congress by the people via the Constitution, but Congress is the one giving the exclusive rights. And that limitation applies to the subset of intellectual property which is dependent on the copyright clause in the US, which isn't all of intellectual property.
But, in any case, even where that applies, it illustrates the existence of intellectual property, since an exclusive right with regard to something protected in law is what property is.
Real property is an exclusive right protected in law with respect to land. Tangible personal property is an exclusive right protected in law with respect to some tangible object not permanently affixed to the land. Intangible personal property (of which intellectual property is a subset) is an exclusive right protected in law that is not attached to land or to some tangible object.
Also: if you don't make use of it, why do you care what they do to protect it? Firefox and Chrome are open source, and as the refrain goes, you can always remove any DRM bits you don't like and use that.
Children watch movies VERY MANY TIMES. They also manage to destroy the physical media.
I'm not sure what the law is about making a backup of the disc (is backup exempted, or am I circumventing an effective copyright measure?) but morally I think it's okay to make a back up of a DVD.
Having said that, I'm on my 3rd DVD of Despicable Me.
100% agreed and can personally attest to that!!
I already payed for the bandwidth to see the movie, it was already on my private property, it is my right to save it and to re-sell it or to mix it with other movies. But no, the intellectual right of the creator supersedes private property, and even my own intellectual creativity - no remixing.
Send intellectual property and rights to the trashcan, write into the constitution that anything written and created is available for remixing and redistribution by any means.
I don't want to own a movie, I want to watch it. I don't want to own music, I want to listen to it.
What I don't agree with is the assumption from content producers that DRM is particularly useful. If the content is displayed on a screen or played out speakers, DRM isn't going to work.
A single viewing of a movie reduces the value to a point where it may not be purchased. That's why distributors release them in as many stunted, protected, phases as possible - they want a return on their investment before it becomes relatively worthless.