7 ms·
> DRM can only protect information not the operation of a physical device. So I think it would actually be reasonable for the DRM to protect a physical device;
by cpwright 11y ago
> DRM can only protect information not the operation of a physical device.
So I think it would actually be reasonable for the DRM to protect a physical device; but the contract should be structured as such.
If I have title to my car and can dispose of it as I see fit; I shouldn't have to abide by DRM. If it is rented and doesn't actually belong to me, then I could see technological mechanisms such as limiting mileage or range as a valid way to enforce part of the contract.
What the line of appropriate vs. not appropriate is of course not necessarily black and white; but I do think John Deere is in the wrong here and the farmer is in the right.
- Retric 11y agoIn a hypothetical situation where DRM caused a car to shut down on the way to a hospital ‘slightly out of range’ that’s hard to justify. The other major issue is a 'hacker' being able to remotely shut down a fleet of rental cars is less than ideal. Just picture a corn harvest where no Tractor worked for 1 week. However, I can see using something like DRM to protect information about how a rented device is operated or where it is being more reasonable. (You drove X miles, where speeding, did not change the oil on a leased car.)