[space_fountain]

I agree though I have actually noticed that Amazon is more clear about this than they used to be. They now clearly say you’re buying a license not the book and it may have just been a Europe thing but I think it even made me confirm that I knew some of the implications of that distinction.

Unlike a lot of people on here I think I don’t have fundamental problems with DRM, but I think consumers absolutely should be guaranteed more rights over the things they buy. Maybe something like.

* access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool

* access is transferable

[JadeNB]

> * access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool

This is unenforcable even in the presence of good will. (If a company goes bankrupt, they might simply not have the resources, or, if relevant programmers leave, then they might not have the ability, to distribute a stripping tool.) A practical measure in this direction might be to mandate that DRM schemes "phone home," which they surely do already, and that they are required to disable themselves if they don't get an affirmative signal.

(Of course, this has its problems from the publishers' point of view, but as a customer I'd be very pleased with it.)

[Larrikin]

Make it a legal requirement during development of any DRM that the tool is created with the DRM. Release of the source code for the tool during bankruptcy, release of the tool and hosting as a legal requirement if they no longer want to support it indefinitely.

Theres no reason taking away our rights should be easy for the company when DRM mostly just makes life miserable for anyone trying to buy digital goods legally.

[Galatians4_16]

>This is unenforcable even in the presence of good will. (If a company goes bankrupt, they might simply not have the resources

Easy. Lock it with a key that functions like a deadman switch and releases into the Library of Congress