Without trying to be picky, I would say that copying is not consuming. So DRM is not anti-consumer, but anti-freedom.
The way words are thrown around theses days is kind of orwellian, and this has gotten into everyday's vocabulary. Part of this issue is philosophic in nature, and the absence of a proper public discussion is conditioning the way we speak in a perverse way.
Consuming requires the exhaustion of the good being consumed: food is eaten, and consumed; clothing is worn, and consumed. This does not apply to data, and to culture in general.
We consume tickets for the right to watch movies in a theater, or visiting a gallery. But we do not consume the movies or the art exhibition.
We could argue whether the limitation of freedom is justified in a given situation, and that is a whole different and interesting discussion, but confusing concepts has led to the generalized (and wrong) conclusion that scarcity pertains to any good we buy, in particular those of cultural nature.
The way words are thrown around theses days is kind of orwellian, and this has gotten into everyday's vocabulary. Part of this issue is philosophic in nature, and the absence of a proper public discussion is conditioning the way we speak in a perverse way.
Consuming requires the exhaustion of the good being consumed: food is eaten, and consumed; clothing is worn, and consumed. This does not apply to data, and to culture in general.
We consume tickets for the right to watch movies in a theater, or visiting a gallery. But we do not consume the movies or the art exhibition.
We could argue whether the limitation of freedom is justified in a given situation, and that is a whole different and interesting discussion, but confusing concepts has led to the generalized (and wrong) conclusion that scarcity pertains to any good we buy, in particular those of cultural nature.