Comment Number:	539814-00500
Received:	1/11/2009 3:04:34 PM
Organization:	N/A
Commenter:	Dane MacMahon
State:	FL
Agency:	Federal Trade Commission
Rule:	FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:

---

Comments:

I understand the need for some kind of DRM and I support companies in their attempts to maintain their rights over profitable IP, but there should be a limit to how much it directly impacts the consumer. In this new world of digital products and Internet commerce, I have seen many of my purchases become playable/listenable/viewable only when the IP owner allows me to do so, or grants me the rights to do so. Limiting installs or uses on something advertised as a full purchase, not a rental, seems like a trick on the consumer. Back when we had Divx, or when renting online, the limited options and/or limited timeframe was clearly know, and the product was advertised as a temporary purchase, a rental. Now an item advertised and priced as a "permanent purchase" can be restricted and my ability to use it end. Another aspect to how they present these things is not including all information on the product box. I have seen products not list the activation number, not list the requirement of 3rd party software to enforce the limit, or what-have-you. My largest interest with DRM is that is does not turn a purchase into a rental, which some DRM seems to try and do. In an age where ownership is no longer about holding something in your hand, which I believe IP owners understand given what IP itself is, it is important to clearly define what I own and what I am renting, and price the item accordingly.