1. Are DRM protections actually adding or substracting value to a product?
NB: value in use not the same thing as market value!
DRM cause the market value of a product to be higher while value in use will be lower:
What happens is: you buy a product with DRM at a higher price; but DRM are here to put limits to the use you can make of it -> lower value in use.
How would I like this as a client/consumer/customer? Not so much.
How would I like this as a conglomerate? Probably a lot, wink wink.
2. Do DRM raise the cost of products? Do they raise the value in use (can you do more things with the product you bought)?
3. Are DRM paradoxical?
Yes, if they always raise the cost of products and never raise the value in use. Otherwise, no.
4. Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) -- boingboing -- wrote: "DRM fails completely at preventing copying, but it is brilliant at preventing innovation". Is Cory right? (oops, almost wrote: is copy right, lol)
(source of quotation:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/mar/12/tim-berners-lee-drm-cory-doctorow)
5. More and more products are including a software. Does this mean the end of property?
Copyrighted softwares have become the frequent case scenario, there are more and more of them, so when a consumer buys a product, he is not the owner of the software included in the product he bought. This is the case for a whole range of products, TV, car, watch...
6. Because of copyrighted softwares included in the products we buy, will we become tenants/renters/occupants instead of owners/proprietors? (end of property?) Will we rent a product instead of buying it? Is that even a problem, by the way? I'd be curious to know what people have to say here.
7. Can you give examples of DRM being beneficial or detrimental to you, in your personal or professional life?
DRM are here to protect IP (intellectual property). Of course IP is a *vast* topic...
Found it this morning, on Cory's twitter account: "Doctorow's elegant phrase: "Digital rights management always converges on malware."