I don't think we really disagree all that much. I think the problem is really that content publishers have been dishonest about what they're selling. When I "

I don't think we really disagree all that much. I think the problem is really that content publishers have been dishonest about what they're selling. When I "buy" a DVD what have I actually bought? What does my mom think I've bought? This difference is I think what fuels the gasps of shock and horror at the size of the damages when it inevitably goes to court. The rental car on the other hand, isn't sold as a bait-and-switch. Where we differ however, is that I don't see attempting to coercively redefine the contract as any less legitimate. If the law is an ass, especially if the law is an ass and has been completely captured by moneyed interests, then disobeying the law en masse until the weight of numbers brings the law into disrepute seems far more likely to push change (at least in this case) than passively boycotting. (FWIW I also believe in jury nullification, which should give you an idea where I stand in the push and pull of rule-of-law vs will-of-the-people) By using technology to put the power to coercively redefine the contract in the hands of the people, the content controller/producers are put in a squeeze. People don't have to pay them any more (which hits them in the wallet) - to fight that they will have to spend ever increasing amounts of money to buy laws and DRM technology. As they do so they will increasingly damage the economic and legal systems they depend upon by becoming ever more draconian, causing ever more collateral damage, with predictable consequences. It seems to me like a case of classic asymmetric warfare, and why they'll lose (or end up so changed from the fight that they'll wish they had).