"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk writes:
I've been asked to take part in the show, and will fly the Free Software flag. If there is anything you want me to keep in mind while on the show, just email me.
DRM can be useful for computer users. I could set up my kernel to only execute signed binaries and then I could sign all my binaries and if/when a virus modifies one of my binaries or installs a new binary, it won't run.
So it can be good, and that sort of DRM is allowed by GPLv3.
Explaining this sort of thing might not be practical, but if the other side calls it a security measure, it's worth pointing out that we have no objection to that use (so long as the user is in control - we do have a problem if it's a user-control measure being masqueraded as "security").
DRM is about taking away computer users' right to make their computer do what they choose. It's about letting third parties control your computer. This has terrible privacy and civil liberty issues for home users, it means that IT staff in companies are giving away control of the company's software infrastructure, and governments should never give away control of the system which they use to process their citizen's data.
Further, DRM trumps law. The law prohibits certain things to be done with copyrighted works without permission. One example is complete copying. One example of something that the law does not prohibit is quoting small sections. DRM can prevent these things and thus gives companies too much power over the citizens. It overrides the laws made by the democratic process and is therefore undemocratic itself.
(You probably knew this, but I thought I'd offer my quick wording in case it stimulates any better ideas.)