Originally Posted by remilard
I think this was my original point, that means to prevent redistribution of media are developed because people illegally redistribute media.
If nobody did so, none of these changes would have been necessary.
Actually, your point seems to be that the media production industries are simply acting defensively. However, legal and technical "copy protection" has never been just about preventing illegal redistribution
but about power and control in preventing some of the legal rights
that consumers have in regards to IP. The MPAA didn't just oppose piracy in the Betamax suit, but sought to eliminate the entirely legal practice of using tapes to time-shift broadcast TV for personal use. Likewise, the RIAA didn't just oppose illegal concert tapes and dubbing, but personal mix tapes, transfers from phonorecords, and recording of radio shows. They were forced to accept these legitimate uses only reluctantly.
However, they are still extremely interested in shaping the legal and technical environment to effectively eliminate "far use." Cable television lobbyists are working against time-shifting digital video recorders. Textbooks frequently come with licenses that deny statutory fair use rights in the classroom, and publishers place hefty documentation demands on fair use.
The Kazaa case is not just about illegal file use, but establishing a precident that undermines the Betamax decision. If the Betamax decision is overturned, it opens up huge liability problems for people who produce any software that can be used to transfer data from computer to computer. The worries about DRM embedded in the hardware involve who
gets to certify software to run on that platform, and for what cost
It is not the case that publishers are acting defensively against a horde of bad people engaged in piracy. Publishers are acting aggressively to expand their rights at the expense of the rights of consumers, educators and students. They are not doing it because it was "made necessary" by a phantom loss of revenue due to piracy. They are doing it because they can gain revenue if they can create de facto
, or de jure
rules in the marketplace that reduce consumer rights and fair use.