It is my considered opinion that several of the analogies you use or parts thereof, as you utilise the Law of Correspondences or Analogy, are too generalised to apply effectively in this instance in the DRM debate.

Most of us realise there are certain rules and even regulations pertaining to renting a property, etc. However, a lot of these rules and regulations are for all intents and purposes reasonable. The same, however, cannot necessarily be said of those of which apply to DRM. Reasonableness, as with so much of which pertains to human life on this ostensibly backward planet, has been thrown out the door in a concerted effort to artificially restrict the freedoms and the rights of the inhabitants of this planet in a paradigm of control, manipulation and extortion for profit in an extreme capitalistic society of which has effectively destroyed true democracy and is continuing to do so at an increasing and distinctly alarming rate.

Humans would virtually cut their own throats or sell their souls for the sake of unessential business and government profit at their individual cost and peril. By unessential, I suppose I should clarify, I mean profit gained from unnecessary stipulated conditions applied to goods and services. This is a planet comprised of weird inhabitants. The way modern society is going, the consumer-citizen will not be able to do anything because all rights and freedoms except for a miniscule basic set of rights and freedoms will have been taken away from them by business and government. If you think this is an unrealistic prediction and a nonsensical utterance of an irrational as well as fanatical alarmist or conspiracy theorist, then I encourage you to look carefully and fully at what’s happening in the present to have an idea of where things are heading.

Let’s face it, copyright, trademarks, IP and DRM are purely human concepts. As such, they are not absolute in life but relative to their adoption as a specific system within the culture of a planetary civilisation and any society therein. In effect, they’re an artificial creation, even as is a monetary system. That humanity at large makes of them a form of absolutism is humanity’s misguided assumption and detrimental mistake. Although such systems may be developed on this planet, they’re not essential for society’s existence outside of the adopted system. In fact, they only become a requirement of a specific system and where the inhabitants of that society or world do not abide by the established laws of society or if these systems are imposed by the authorities in business and government as a means of control, manipulation and extortion. I don’t deny anyone the ability to make money in order to live in the world, even though as I’ve said I don’t believe in a monetary system or even a bartering system for that matter, but I do take exception to those systems of control. manipulation and extortion whereby people’s natural rights and freedoms are subverted by a corrupt, selfish and greedy system.

In contradistinction to the oft espoused and erroneous human thinking, no creation, no technology and no idea can be owned by anyone. All such things are an outcome of the nature of the Universe and of life itself. No human can claim any of these as their own to laud over any other human in a system of control, manipulation and extortion. It’s actually impractical alongside being preposterous to assume and to out picture otherwise.

So long as the computer user holds to a genuine ethical standard, the computer they have purchased with its hardware and software, plus any additions thereto, should be free of any illegitimate restrictions of usage. I would even go so far as to say that no restrictions should be built into a system even if the purchaser of the system have a propensity to break copyright law. I for one do not want any person, business or government to tell me what I can or cannot do on or with my computer or for these category of people and institutions to use some form of programming to build in restrictions as to usage of hardware or software on a machine I have purchased. To me, if not to the vast majority of people, these built-in restrictions are tampering with hardware and software and are unethical practices themselves. I, for instance, should not have to contact Microsoft to convince them that I am doing nothing illegal with my system in order to obtain a key to unlock a system that has been locked and thereby is unusable because I happened to add or change hardware too frequently. To have to do this is absurd, irrational and utterly stupid. Humans can think as they please, but it is wrong and manifestly unjust. There are other ways and means to deal with pirating and the like.

Regarding DVDs btw, it’s not illegal to rip them or make a backup, but it’s illegal to break their locking mechanism with DeCSS (or whatever it’s called). Without using this library to unlock the DVDs you can’t do anything with them. And they have outlawed this action.

So basically, it’s like MPAA telling you: “it’s perfectly ok with us to drink from this can of Sprite but you are not allowed to open the can”.