In some ways you have to admire the audacity and amount of hot air that lawyers for the entertainment industry can expel. Nowhere though is this type of verbal buffoonery more apparent than the defense they use to prop up the concept of DRM’ing our music and movies.
A good example of this attitude can bee seen in the submissions made to the Copyright Office during its triennial DMCA review by Steven Metalitz, a Washington lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA and other rights holders. This is his response to the Copyright Office over the possible exceptions that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store closes and takes down the authentication servers.
“We reject the view,” he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, “that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”
Source: Ars Technica :: Big Content: ludicrous to expect DRMed music to work forever
Talk about priceless but it doesn’t stop there. He continues on with this
“To recognize the proposed exemption would surely discourage any content provider from entering the marketplace for online distribution… unless it was committed to do so… forever. This would not be good for consumers, who would find a marketplace with less innovation and fewer choices and options.”
Even as Amazon and iTunes make music available without any form of DRM we still get this lawyer blow hot air up everyone’s butt. It’s no wonder that people are getting fed up with the whole entertainment industry.