I’m not a lawyer(*****), but the last time I checked, the original foundation stone on which copyright law was based was that of “the printed work”. Before anyone arcs-up, I know, music and movies, etc are not “printed works”. However, follow the logic as to why “the printed work” should remain the basis of copyright law and the outrageous claims by the MPAA/RIAA/etc show up for what they really are… blatant grabs for money (which is unlikely to be passed on to the original artist either for that matter…). Nothing like a lawyer in the form of one Steven Metalitz (who represents the likes of the MPAA, etc) to decide to modify consumer rights to bolster the profits of a corporation.
Let’s look at this like “John Q. Citizen” when buying a book, Vinyl LP, cassette or “Red Book Standard” CD (ie: non-DRM-encumbered media). He buys it, takes it home, uses it as many times as he likes until it wears out or he tires of it.
Now consider Metalitz’s statement that he rejects the need “to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works” that they have already purchased. If extended to non-DRM-encumbered media, the implication is staggering. The logical equivalent of Metalitz’s statement in the real world is that at some indeterminate time after purchase, they are reserving the right to come in and remove or destroy the media from your house and walk away without any compensation.
Now, while that statement may sound outrageous, is it any less outrageous than what amounts to digital vandalism that they are promoting ?
DRM is fundamentally evil.