|
I believe that DRM is being deployed prematurely, before existing copyright law has a chance to fully prove itself in this new environment. I believe DRM is also being deployed for the purpose of challenging and then redefining copyright law.
Someone with deep pockets, or maybe a class, will need to get a lawsuit going to stop the implementation of DRM before existing copyright law is completely gutted. A large problem with that is there are so many methods of DRM being tossed around that a ruling regarding one vendor will no doubt need to be relitigated for each of the others.
Talk about stimulating frivolous lawsuits ... DRM is going to be the poster child for them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a copyright holder, myself, and enjoy the benefits of its protection. But this is going too far in an attempt to protect, not the artist/author/composer but the publishing company's profits.
If a new, niche work could have minimal sales and widespread "underground" distribution, that would lay the groundwork for future, bigger sales on future works. With DRM all that gets distributed are paid copies (minimal), and that artist/author/composer will never get their career off the ground like so many have before them because word of mouth and 'mix tapes' would barely get a chance to develop before the sales curve drops ... just like their publishing contract would be.
|