No DRMI came across a story on ars technica about a DC Lawyer that represents the RIAA.  When Wal-Mart closed down its DRM servers and stopped its on-line music sales, anyone who’d bought some couldn’t use it anymore.

This pissed off some people and they complained to the Copyright Office and now it’s “reviewing” again.

The article is worth reading, and it details the insane arguments the lawyer is putting forth to the Copyright Office.  The basic argument he’s making is that people shouldn’t expect the digital media they buy to work forever.  Here’s some of the text in his letter to the CO:

“We reject the view, that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so.”

“Lofty standards?”  It’s now “lofty” that I expect a song or movie that I purchase to work at some point in the future after I buy it?  I love the “No other product or service providers…”  bit.  I guess this guy has never heard of a book before.  Seemingly gone through law school you’d think he’d have used a book or two in his time.   I bet if one of his course books had stopped working before a test because the publisher decided to do something else he would be singing a different tune.  My Mom has vinyl records from the 50′s that she still listens to, a lot of the companies that produced those records are no longer in business but she can still play the records just fine.

As for “No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity” I’d be happy to introduce him to a number of customers I speak with daily that have exactly this expectation.  I’ve spoken to customers that have purchased computer hardware, and software, from us over nine years ago that get all pissy with us when it stops working.

I understand that if the creators of the media don’t get any money there will be no incentive for them to produce it.  I get that.  What the RIAA fails to understand, or at least are willing to admit to, is that if I can watch it, or I can hear it then it can be copied.  Period.  No amount of protection or legislation will ever alter that fact. 

All the laws that are in place to stop under-age drinking, smoking, speeding, etc. do nothing to stop people from doing it.  The bulk of the people obey these laws and society chugs along just fine.  I think the RIAA needs to quit wasting their time (and their clients money) and work out a new model that doesn’t rely on civil prosecution for success.