Have you actually read Cory Doctorow's speech to Microsoft? It's amazingly well thought-out and written, and probably the best explanation of where the anti-DRM people come from. Take the time and read it if you haven't:

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Here is my point by point take:<blockquote class="smalltext">1. He says DRM technology is easily hacked. I don't really care as even if it is hacked it is the legal protection I care about - and which is the real basis for the arguments.<p>
2. Anti-circumvention technology in response to the easy hack carries an ability to run rough shod over fair dealing. This is contradictory to his own citation of Schneier's Law being "anyone can come up with a security
system so clever that he can't see its flaws". Every owner of anything has the right to create it and frame it in such a way that fair dealing may be compromised. It's called trade secret and its called control. If you want to make "X" dollars by selling you asset in X-land and "Y" dollars later by selling you asset in Y-land, there is nothing stopping you. By co-opting the fair dealing argument so that Norwegians can hack French market material, no one is paid for the Norwegian consumption of the French expression. It is like making a tool to break open a door of your neighbour's house. You may be very clever in making that tool but its purpose is to take what is not yours.<p>
3. He is simply wrong that control of the medium of reception by those in control of transmission is new. Marconi did it with early radio - finding greatest success in the UK. The Catholic Church has done it for centuries. Every person who knows that they have some opportunity guard it closely so as to not sell the farm. The fact that others will run with the idea farther is exactly why they do that. This is a matter of age old tension between the smart and the smarter (or, rather, the smart and the wealthier). The ability to exclude is one of the fundamental characteristics of property law. The fact that a non-owner could do more if he could only get his hands on the widget or idea is a non-idea.<p>4. He, again, is simply wrong that copyright is basically technological. Patent is, but copyright relates to expression. Collective royalty structure are certainly a compromise but, as individual artists would otherwise get nothing, then SOCAN and other orgnaizations are a boon to them. My organization theoretically pays a chunk of cash to Debbie Boone everytime the phone play the poxy "You Light Up My Life" while people are on call waiting. She may think that a cheesie use of her tune but she gets paid more than she would by her choosing which media and which context the work appears in. This is a system that recognizes the pervasiveness and lack of control inherent in recorded arts. What the video recorder and the cassette deck cases speak to are the limits on this collective control by artists of non-commercial reproduction. Similarly the recent cases on hard drives. We have a right to copy from one medium to another for our own uses should not be restricted by the need to control copying for improper reasons. The capabilites of the Internet he describes do not change this - the only thing for certain about technology is that it will all be obsolete soon enough. It would be interesting to read about 1900 objections to copyright due to the compelling needs of new electric technology or from 1750 due to the invention of the newspaper. The Internet will be a spitoon soon enough. He is wrong in his characterization of the technologcal changes that have cause changes to copyright law as the fundamental nature of the law never changes - the protection of the author. More and more media get included, that's all. If he were right, other technologies would have killed it off long ago. [Remember - it is centuries old.] Again, there is nothing new in digital media.<p>5. Reading this kind of writing is like reading the rarely seen attractive policital platform. It is based on a wish rather than an independent analysis. It is interestingly enough based entirely on the "worship innovation - it's good for business" argument, a form of bold-faced argument that might make a 1870s industrialist blush. It is entirely focused on the capacity of the medium makers not the content owners.</blockquote>It is just not a convincing argument, Isaac. It is a creative, interesting and supported argument but when you sum up his point it ends with his premise - he ought to get his hands on whatever he can because if you do not let him he will take it anyway.

It's pretty simple, you just have to answer the question: "What was copyright meant for?"

That is not how law works. The question is only "what does it do". The rest is wishery.

Cory Doctorow is going for the Dave Winer with blinders award with his continuation of the one drum beating of the "obvious" evils of DRM/copyright in this response to an article in <i>Gizmo</i> on e-books. Again, we are subject to selective and obviously flawed illustrations as the driver of argument. Consider this:<blockquote class="smalltext">Bizarrely, he asserts that people might buy periodicals that expire off their players in 60 days -- despite the fact that every one of us has a friend or relative with a giant stack of old computer mags, or National Geographics, or colorful Wireds, sitting on a shelf. </blockquote>Given that most magazine are actually turfed, setting a price point that I will accept for 60 day access to a piece of fluff is a great idea. If I want to hang on to it I might be happy to pay more - but give me the price point option. Nothing bizzare at all. By using such illustrations, Cory shows he is not open to discussion, has set out his argument and is sticking to it, by God. A Winering argument, indeed.