Any system that requires us to open our computers to it has to be viewed with suspicion, if only because our security is only as good as the security of that system. Hacking occurs, and suddenly we find that we are more vulnerable. I am constantly undergoing software amendments and updates on my smartphone, often whether I want them or not. Typically, I get adverts I don't want. But let us consider the simple fact that a copy of most well-known books is not going to materially change between first publication and re-publication perhaps decades or even centuries afterwards. If I choose to acquire the version in which modern idiom replaces (say) Jane Austen's original form, it is down to me, but if I have DRM right, that no longer applies - however the owner of the system decides, the change occurs. The debate above has been in places puerile, but the issues remain constant. If any company imposes a method of 'protecting' 'its' material which ensures that they can control access to that material (even if they do not actually do so at first) is acting uncompetitively and not in the best interests of users. To use the analogy already suggested, laws are meant to be broken, and more importantly laws that do not serve the people should be broken. In GB we tend to toe the line, but in France they simply ignore unreasonable or draconian rules. Just because something is possible is no reason whyit should be done. I just hope that the management at Daz has the sense to quietly drop this idea,and return to the friendly and generally enjoyable status quo.

Malwat

Getting younger by the day; getting older by the minute....