It looks almost like DRM is designed to empower a few at the expense of the many.
It looks almost like DRM is designed to empower a few at the expense of the many.
Rent. Lease. Those are the proper words.
If customers are faced with the choice of buying content from one entity, and renting it from another, I think they'll vote with their wallets and most DRM will disappear. But as long as corporations are allowed to use the words "buy" and "sale" for transactions which are not purchases or sales, the deceit will continue.
However, as that does not seem to be the case, and law-enforcement is lax on what is a buy-sell transaction, lets make that kickstarter-alike project but instead of donating the users actually "BUY" ownership of a company or idea they want to support. Now the ownership can be restricted as much as a donation or an ebook "purchase" is, but it would still be a competitor to kickstarter and other projects who are not allowed to use the term Buy for their marketing purposes but are forced to accept donations only.
Microsoft was also the party most eager to stiffle dissent in the encrypted media working group by the likes of me, EFF, etc. and who aggressively boxed this "standard" trough with almost daily telephone conferences they held with apple, google, bbc, netflix etc.
DRM is designed to put up barriers against competitors. It's designed to stiffle innovation and to vendor-lock in users and authors.
Why do you think Microsoft is all over EME like flies over cowdung? Microsoft has lost tremendous amounts of browser market share, and here comes EME/DRM, and they finally see a credible chance to lock "the web" back into their platform.
But hey you don't see anybody talking about how Google wants to kill the open web, its simply the big bad WC3.