Here are some points I'd like to make on copyright/DRM.
1. The entities pushing for more internet/computing DRM controls, are the SAME entities who've been pushing free filesharing software for a decade. For eg see that annoying guy's video about the SOPA backers. From this it's clear that for the money interests, copyright is only a means to an end - which is more control over the Internet. And that's ALL it's ever been.
2. Ditto with 'closing the box' of general purpose computing. The pretended purpose of imposing hardware DRM controls is only a secondary objective. The primary objective is to control how people are able to use computers. (This is a whole different topic, I didn't include any links.)
3. The original concept of copyright allowed only seven years 'profit taking' and that was in the time of exclusively physical paper books, printed music, etc. Since then the copyright period has been 'infinitely re-extended', while on the other hand the digital technology revolution has thrust the intrinsic nature of data in our faces.
4. Data has no 'copyright' colour, or flavour. It doesn't matter HOW much our present economic system wishes data did have such a property, or tries to force data to behave as if it did. It simply doesn't. Consequently our present legal system based on 'ownership' of 'created works' (data) is flatly delusional.
Sure, you can create a digital work. You can keep it a secret, in which case no one else has it. Or, you can allow others to obtain it. Once you no longer have actual exclusive possession, you can politely ask
other people holding the data to give you some money for it, and they might even do that, if they like it and feel like being generous.
But the moment you start trying to contrive ways to FORCE people to pay for data (which by its intrinsic nature can be copied forever and ever without any loss), then you are pitting yourself against the nature of the universe. You WILL have to attempt to completely control ALL forms of knowledge and communication, since data is infinitely mutable, and you can never be sure what is being passed from one person to another. Unless you control every single tiny step everyone can make with computers and passing things between them. Ultimately, fundamentally, there's no other way to prevent the free exchange of data.
But data and knowledge are effectively the same thing. So by trying to control the exchange of 'your data', you are inevitably forced to try to control all exchange of knowledge.
This puts you in direct confrontation with the deepest purpose of the Universe, which is to develop and disseminate knowledge.
There's no better definition of fundamental evil, than one who wishes to control and restrict knowledge.
And that's what you MUST become, by logical extension, if you support ANY form of DRM.
The people who are pushing DRM in all its forms, including closed box computing, have no problem with this reasoning. Because 'controlling all knowledge' is actually their primary objective. They don't give a shit about 'starving musicians or writers' or whatever.
You know the background music on that "You wouldn't steal a car" un-skipable warning that's on so many DVDs?
Guess what. The people who made that clip STOLE that music.
Here's a list of references: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_copyright_DRM_links.txt