This CNet article by Jo Best includes:
The European Union has issued a draft document on the implications of the spread of digital rights management, which is often used to protect copyrighted material such as software and music.
I have sent a message to our own Privacy Commissioner, as well as feedback on the News.com site.
Feedback reads:
I have submitted a request to the Canadian privacy comissioner to do a report on Digital Rights Management (DRM) and related implications of unaccountable and non-transparent "software code". http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/code-is-law.html
One of the problems with this area of technology policy is that most of the discussion is happening in the absence of the question "how does this technology accomplish its claimed goals", and what are the unintended consequences of the methods used. While most discussions talk about the privacy and other implications of a copyright holder having too much control, the reality is that this technology is unable to grant direct control to copyright holders at all.
At the point where an Information and Communications Technology device copies something (or not) only 3 entities can have control: the owner of the device, the operator of the device, or the manufacturer of the device (author of the DRM software). A copyright holder can only encode their content and copyright license and deliver it (using TPMs to stop third party reception) to one or more of these 3 entities.
Once this important fact is understood the privacy, competition, human rights and other implications can be adequately evaluated. Believing that the copyright holder is in control of DRM and discussing the implications is like discussing the implications in physics or astronomy of the world being flat.