I.M.O.G. said:
You may need to consider this more deeply.
Which law is in place that does not hamper the freedoms of law abiding citizens? I cannot think of one.
Every law takes away some liberties in a way, to protect an entities rights in some way.
Speed limits stop you from driving as fast as you like to, and why should you not be able to drive your $25,000 vehicle as fast as you like? Because this injunction against your personal liberty is necessary to ensure that you do not drive your vehicle into a slow moving station wagon and take out a whole family.
In a similar way, DRM laws will inhibit the appropriate use by rightful owners of the data/software it protects, and it is not even a base intention of DRM to eliminate this. I'm certain DRM is intended to minimize it, but the implementers are fully aware that at the same time as they are making things more difficult for pirates, they are inconveniencing or possibly even completely cutting out portions of their market. Unfortunately, I think it is fairly clear in my research, that the tools are readily available to enable pirating of mainstream media, and even much that is obscure, with little or no effort and knowledge required.
It simply makes me wonder when the decision makers will realize that their approach is wholly inadequate. The software protection they incorporate is useless, and more importantly, not free to develop. It is a shame that people who honor the laws, and respect fair use, are caught picking up part of the tab - they experience sanctions against their appropriate use still, but have no protection from others ripping and pirating at will.
Anyways, my point was that with every law or form of protection, something is taken away from one entity, ideally, in order to provide a more positive factor for another entity.