I think DRM is anti culture. Human history has been about sharing. We are a product of the whole. Cultural wealth has been passed down hundreds of years. Now th

I think DRM is anti culture. Human history has been about sharing. We are a product of the whole. Cultural wealth has been passed down hundreds of years. Now the story tellers and singers do not want you to repeat their stuff, which put in perspective is not a very cultural thing to do. And the only reason they can do this is because interests can congregate and technology can be abused but it seems morally and ethically questionable. You are not stealing anything, you are watching or listening to a product of our culture. You do not take anything away from anyone. Its just a small period of 70 years before the internet when mass media and content creators could colloborate to 'manufacture trends', hits and disproportionate wealth. Before that artists went broke and risked everything just to get their stuff published and out to readers and viewers. Obviously this is not how it should be but the whole 'jetset star lifestyle' may not always be possible simply because you are an artist. The problem is now that kind of 'trend manufacturing' is much harder to pull off. But the entire industry from studios to artists have got throughly spoilt, got used to those disproportionate returns and are now throwing all their toys out of the pram. Artists create but the rest of the world is also busy creating stuff. Engineers, industrial designers, scientists, programmers, eveyone is creating stuff. Can anyone just be 'entitled' to extraordinary wealth just because they create. Maybe its their cost structures, business models and expectations that need to change. DRM is just a tantrum backed by money, its rent seeking of the worst kind and our democractic institutions and systems are so compromised by special interests they will continue to get their way.