Even accidentally releasing a demo or preview with DRM should invalidate copyright on that software/movie/book/whatever.
This doesn't make for a good anti-DRM argument because the concern can simply be addressed by requiring a DRM-free copy to be deposited at the library of congress (or similar[1]) so it can be released in 150 years (or whatever) it actually becomes public domain.
Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is? Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"? What if they implement streaming via webrtc, to make it extra-annoying to manually download? For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player? What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft?
Then do that. It's not my job to try to argue your side of things. No one does that, as you well know, so my argument not only stands, but wins.
>Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is?
Anything that interferes with copying the work in question.
>Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"?
Yes. This is an obnoxiously juvenile question. The nature of streaming services is that they send the media to the node (on demand). If that is done in a way that makes it difficult to play it a second time except to "stream" it again, you can hardly claim this is incidental. They go to great lengths to prevent it.
>For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player?
Again, yes. There is no other purpose to such a requirement, and no one makes it a secret that this is done specifically to thwart so-called "piracy" attempts.
>What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft?
You mean like with Blizzard, where they sued the programmers who did bnetd and prevented people from connecting to third party servers which computed gameplay? That wasn't even done to further piracy, by the way, they were just being dicks.
This is a nonsensical complaint, because the actually existing DMCA already conditions legal consequences on whether DRM is present.
Fair use exists for both people and corporations. Just because a corporation copies something in a way that is fre use, that doesn't mean that people should be able to freely copy it.
Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight.
> Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight.
Sounds about right. If they had the moral fortitude to apply the laws as they were supposed to, they'd do the right thing and if it collapses the economy then so be it. The fact they didn't reveals political calculation in their judgements.
When laws are stripped of their moral advantage, resistance to laws, courts and authorities becomes civil disobedience and a moral imperative of citizens. We cannot have mutually exclusive ideas existing simultaneously. That's how we get distortions like "you citizen must pay outta the nose for everything but the elite corporations can do whatever they want with complete impunity". The only acceptable way for them to resolve their conundrum is to either hold corporations accountable for their copyright infringement or abolish copyright for all. Anything else can and should cause civil unrest.
I wouldn't go that far. 18 months is long enough though.