The problem is not with DRM, but with the copyright system behind DRM.
Way back when, the US created a law to insure the greatest benefit to the nation, business, the producer and the consumer. It was called the General Mining Act of 1872. Its intent was to “get America mining”, so that all Americans could benefit from the enormous proceeds of mining.
It was simple in concept. Anyone could stake a mining claim about anywhere, including on another person’s land; but, and here’s the important part, they had to “improve” that stake to the tune of $500 a year, or they would *lose* that stake, and anyone else could claim it.
The word “improve” meant either they *invested* $500 into the stake, or that they made a gross profit of $500 directly from it.
The Mining Act worked wonders. And America benefited from it.
Now compare that to copyright law. Copyright has been extended so far that it will long outlive content creators. And it is so flexible that copyright can be bought, sold and traded, so that those with nothing to do with its production can own it.
However, they do not have to “improve” it. For this reason, there are vast libraries of copyrighted work just sitting there, not available for sale or use by anyone but their owner. The nation, business, producers and consumers get nothing out of it. Its owners don’t want to be bothered to sell it, but they can prevent anyone else from doing so.
Now, if someone wants to create something and never sell it, fine. That is there prerogative. However, if they want to sell it for a while, and then just stop, and never sell it again, why should they have government protection?
Why should the government protect their “right” to *not* sell, or to prevent others from selling? This makes no sense. It does not stimulate creativity, it does not help the market, in fact it hinders the market.
So what should the copyright law be? Simply put: “Use it or lose it.”
Here is an example. Disney Corporation owns the copyright and trademark to the Mickey Mouse character, known around the world. And annually, Disney makes a huge amount of money from this well known character. And this is fine and dandy, and they should be able to keep this copyright and trademark as long as it keeps making them money.
However, Disney also owns the rights to their movie “Song of the South”. But because racers called it “racist”, Disney refuses to sell it anymore. Its last sale was in Japan, on Laser Disk. But because they own the copyright for the movie, nobody else can sell it, either.
And if someone converts a Japanese Laser Disk of the movie to DVD, they have committed an act of “piracy”. Why is that?
Solely because Disney retains its “rights” to something they refuse to sell. Because Disney has been given government protection over a product they refuse to sell.
Which denies that product to America, business, producers and consumers.
This is why copyright law, trademark law, even patent law needs to be reevaluated. I’ll note that of these, the most insidious might be those companies whose sole business is to buy patents, then sit on them, hoping to sue other companies that inadvertently use them in their own products.
They “toil not, neither do they spin”, but just sit there hoping to either demand huge royalties from those who *have* to use that product or procedure; or to sue those who invent it on their own, not knowing it has already been patented.
In other words, they parasite other businesses, hurting producers and consumers in the process. So why on earth is the government giving them a license to do so?