Federal trade Commission wants to hear your comments about DRM

[rudedog]

If you are a US citizen, head over to the Federal Trade Commission's site and leave your feedback.

You have until Jan 30, 2009 to leave any comments related to how you feel about DRM. Federal Trade Commission
Title: Notice and Request for Public Comments
Subject Category: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Published: To Be Added
Comments Due: January 30, 2009

How To Comment: Digital rights management (DRM) refers to technologies typically used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, and copyright holders to attempt to control how consumers access and use media and entertainment content. Among other issues, the workshop will address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations. Interested parties may submit written comments or original research on this topic.
- Click here (https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-DRMtechnologies/) and let them know how you feel!

[nekrosoft13]

wow, let it rip haha

[hemmy]

I left a message :)

[jcrox]

I left a message :D

[CaptNKILL]

Ohoh... this is going to be nasty. :o

Sad thing is that they're going to be totally overrun with immature "I like to steel for free and DRM IS SUK!!!" messages.

[Madpistol]

I just wrote a nice little essay on DRM to them.

In essence, Valve does it right... EA does not.

That is all. :p

[Bearclaw]

I left a message. :)

I also mentioned how horny bigman was. :eek2:

[glObalist]

I'm not a US citizen and I left a message.

[Madpistol]

I left a message. :)

I also mentioned how horny bigman was. :eek2:

Great.... now you're sure to have your case heard. :headexplode:

[Bearclaw]

Great.... now you're sure to have your case heard. :headexplode:

:thumbsup:

[NarcissistZero]

Commented this:

I understand the need for some kind of DRM and I support companies in their attempts to maintain their rights over profitable IP, but there should be a limit to how much it directly impacts the consumer. In this new world of digital products and Internet commerce, I have seen many of my purchases become playable/listenable/viewable only when the IP owner allows me to do so, or grants me the rights to do so.

Limiting installs or uses on something advertised as a full purchase, not a rental, seems like a trick on the consumer. Back when we had Divx, or when renting online, the limited options and/or limited timeframe was clearly know, and the product was advertised as a temporary purchase, a rental. Now an item advertised and priced as a "permanent purchase" can be restricted and my ability to use it end.

Another aspect to how they present these things is not including all information on the product box. I have seen products not list the activation number, not list the requirement of 3rd party software to enforce the limit, or what-have-you.

My largest interest with DRM is that is does not turn a purchase into a rental, which some DRM seems to try and do. In an age where ownership is no longer about holding something in your hand, which I believe IP owners understand given what IP itself is, it is important to clearly define what I own and what I am renting, and price the item accordingly.

[Mike89]

Definitely left a message.