Digital Restriction Management, Digital Rights Management, Digital Copyright Management. So many phrases for the same thing - some tomfoolery must be going on.

Winer states that the BBC and amateurs do not need it. Ruk indicates that the the CBC seems to want something like it. Doc Seales said this last January which ties controls on works in digital form to their authors who exist in human form. Now, new Microsoft email provides authors with greater rights controls than ever - though not apparently the alleged self-destruct button.

Where does this all go. I have said that I do not see the problem with owners of interest controling it but, like anyone should, I have a healthy distrust of my own opinions, knowing how shallow and inconsistent I am...being human.

So... I do see the limits as being the need to protect the interest of the human author in the face of technology's capability to glibly or unintentionally override them. Just because a machine can do something does not mean it ought to. The limit with digital content should be no different from the paper or vocal or painted world. That world has limits, however. The law does not allow for the destruction of material which should be discoverable in a legal dispute - emails with shelf life would not pass that smell test. Limits of slander, liable, fraud, forgery and theft also must apply. Technical standards which avoid these requirements for the good conduct of the community are ill advised.   Interests should be controllable by authors but not so absolute that they are not reviewable by the community under due process.