I think we should just look at the logical conclusions of DRM:

1. DRM allows software vendors to restrict using some technical means, what other software is installed on your machine - how convenient for them (Real, Apple and Microsoft) - they don't need to compete with other media players any more, they can legally, legitimately simply uninstall them or break them.

2. DRM is installed in the BIOS and OS of the machine, which prevents running unsigned software:
- Writing open source software is now comparable to making open source weapons - you can do it, but need to obtain masses of expensive licences / permissions from the government

3. You now need a licence to even OWN a compiler. Yes, that's right. Can't let any normal people own compilers, in case they "accidentally" compile something which violates DRM. The same licence will allow you to run a non-DRM PC (for personal or commercial use only of course, you can't lend it to anyone etc)

It will be stupid because:

a. The system will be circumvented as soon as it is invented (Like PS2 and Xbox DRM measures)
b. Anyone who's bent on creating malicious software, will ignore the rules anyway
c. It will place a massive financial drain on software companies, getting the relevant government licences to develop software under a DRM world - thus further increasing the likelihood of software companies relocating to non-DRM enforcing countries (i.e. not the US or its allies (i.e. not the UK ) )

Slarty