Digtal Rights Extortion

While looking through stories posted on digg, I came across a story about an Anti-DRM Demonstration which took place in New York. A user posted a comment which seems extremely uninformed, he wrote: "There are some merits to certain aspects of the anti-drm stance, but in general it's a thinly veiled disguise behind which people who for whatever reason don't feel like they want to follow intellectual property laws." I will try to pose some points on why, in general, DRM is in fact a violation of the individual's property rights.

One of the first points that crossed my mind about "intellectual property laws" is how many of the creator's of the "intellectual property" oppose any kinds of digital rights management. Take for instance the recent story about the Dave Matthews Band disc, which had copy protection that prevented the user from making legal digital copies of their physical property. While I don't like the band, I do like the fact that they posted a guide on their website on how to circumvent this protection so that you, the individual, can preserve your investment. It is clear that the copy protection was not supported by the owners of the "intellectual property," it is in fact a corporate decision to protect record sales and ensure that discs are purchased instead of pilfered. How can you argue that the artist wanted to stop violations of copyright, when they have guides on how you can circumvent the technology?

It simply can not be argued that it’s a violation of “intellectual property” any longer, because many of the owners of said property want their property open. If an artist, not a corporation, wants to implement copy protection that’s their prerogative. Most artists make virtually nothing from record sales – thanks again, to their huge sycophantic distributors – and make the majority of their money from tours and merchandise. Who are “intellectual property laws” really protecting?

Another key point to the argument against DRM is individual property rights. If I purchase a film or an album, on a physical medium, that is prone to eventual decay as to be rendered inaccessible, why can't I make a digital copy for archival purposes? Personally, I copy every album I purchase to my hard drive in the event that I lose the disc, or it's damaged in some way (I've had these problems, lost discs and broken discs, and having a digital copy at my disposal has rarely deterred me from actually buying another copy of the physical disc eventually). Digital Rights Management prevents me from copying my property, to protect my investment, and the reason is simply asinine.

I do not use file sharing software, so nothing I have is ever shared with anybody else, but yet I still can't have a copy of my property for my own fair personal use. It's simply unfeasible to think that piracy and the propagation of media will ever be stopped or slowed; the community of file sharing is evolving as fast as the technology to stop it. It's a never ending battle - much like the War on Drugs. Nothing is going to change, and it’s simply not fair that the majority of end users are prevented from copying the music or films that they own, because a few pirates and file sharers are violating the law.

EDIT: A prime example of Digital Rights Extortion can be read about here