Speaking personally, if asked "DRM & privacy, both or neither?" then I will take "both" -- YMMV.
This bullshit is getting deeper and thicker. (dis)ability to replay received information at will has next to nothing to do with ability to stop unwanted parties from obtaining secret information. Let me rephrase this for stupids: DRM is about enforcing NDA between me and someone who made information available to me. DRM is about preventing me to transmit information which became a part of my experience. DRM is about who owns my memories. One *is* the sum of information obtained from the outside world. Information becomes (a small) part of you. This is why people share songs - they identify with something there and want to communicate it. THAT'S WHY THEY LIKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The ultimate DRM is city government stopping you from describing streets, leased apartment owner stopping you from reminiscing sex you had there, school suing you from passing on the knowledge learned. Put a newborn in a sensory deprivation tank and twenty years later observe someone who fully obeys "rights". There is no moderate answer to this. The only possible answer is FUCK YOU. Privacy is about stopping unwanted from knowing my private bits, bits I share with my chosen circle of associates and friends. And guess what - I am not a friend or associate with entertainment publishers. I am not a member. Sale of information is always a sale to the group one belongs to. After few iterations it quickly expands to the whole connected world. So publishers can choose to (a) become pipes more convenient and faster than information working its way through degrees of separations or (b) go out of business. In the meantime a lot of money and maybe some blood will be spent trying to accomodate sheer greed. There is no middle road. Keep your fingers off my memories or I'll pulverize yours. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com