That's why we should use the term CRAP instead of DRM

Content Restriction Access Management would cover all content, including liquid ink.

Though you can argue that "digital" in this case is referring to the chip and reader. These are infact digital components restricting access to liquid.

I think you mean Content Restriction Access Protection (or Permission), as CRAM just doesn't have quite the ring to it :)

I can see the CRAM/CRAP bill advance it's way to the Senate floor. Would love to ask my local congressperson "What's your stance on CRAP?" and watch him try to say "I'm all for CRAP it's good for business, and if CRAM/CRAP is good for business, it's good for the little guy." If someone can get this done, I'm running for office on a NO CRAP platform.

They'll CRAM it down your throat whether you like it or not.

I agree, and propose that an item having restrictions like this should be referred to as "loaded with CRAP".

In this case it's CRAM and I don't think content covers cases concerning hardware like this.

Maybe Consumer Restricted Access Pattern.

In essence those are monopolistic and consumer hostile practices.

> Of course there's no legal right to ink supply monopoly.

Most of what DRM does on a video isn't enforcing legal copyright either.

> And the ink being controlled is not even solid, let alone digital. It's merely a computerized lock on a physical item.

Does 'digital' apply to the rights or to the management?

Doesn't DRM on video enforce where the digital content can be played? Is this not exactly what enforcing copyright is since copyright dictates where and how something can be consumed?

DRM controls where you can play things. Copyright controls where you can play things. But 90% of the time those two sets of playback controls don't overlap. DRM stops you from using different devices you own. DRM won't let you skip certain segments. DRM won't stop you from publicly showing the video. etc.

DRM restricts more than copyrights.

In many legal systems you have a definition of fair use that allows you to do more with the content that you purchased than what producers would like.

For example - you are free to share it with family and close friends, play on as many devices and on whatever software you wish, and share wildly short clips. DRM prevents all that.

> Is this not exactly what enforcing copyright is since copyright dictates where and how something can be consumed?

The copyright on a (printed) book doesn't let the publisher dictate where and how the book can be read. As long as you're not making copies or derivative works or putting on a public performance you can consume it however you wish. Even on those cases there are exceptions for fair use, e.g. parody. The same applies to DRM-free audiovisual recordings. Anyone can make a player for VHS tapes or DRM-free DVDs without running afoul of copyright, but the same is not true once DRM is involved thanks to the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA, and that gives publishers far more power to dictate how copyrighted (or even formerly copyrighted) works can be used than they would have under copyright alone.

Digitally protects the "right" of the manufacturer to charge insane prices, is how I always read it.

> Funny how people are adopting the word "DRM" here even though printer cartridges have nothing to do with "digital rights".

Thus, it is common in hacker circles to consider DRM as an abbreviation for Digital Restrictions Management.

Sure, it's not DRM classic but it's not that big a leap in logic -- it is still a digital system that manages your rights (to use any cartridge you want).