Recently I was thinking that a DRM'd file was ideal for accessing the music I'll buy from online stores, from anywhere in the world.

I could put them on the net without fearing of being sued, since DRM'd files can only be read by those who have the rights to them (a good assumption if DRM is working as expected).

Thus the only thing you have to do is bring with you in your travels the medium containing the rights (for WMA for example), or having the login and password for iTunes Music Store to authorise the machine you're on at a precise time.

I was really wondering if such an argument would hold in court.

The RIAA and Co were really working for the consumer. I think they never thought of that. If they sue, that means they don't trust at all their own solutions.

What do you think?

Depends on the wording the legislation uses. AFAIK it wouldn't hold in Denmark, since you're entitled to copy original content, but not copied content. If you can put your content online without copying it, and play it back without copying it, that might do.

Anyway, another alternative would be to actually use one of those fancy music stores. Doesn't Apple's store allow you to have up to three computers authorised for playback?

@danchr: but that would limit you to travel within a coutry. what if you go on vocation to say Carabian or somewhere in Italy? Remember what happend to that american guy who bought his music from Apple Store in US, but then went to Canada and all his songs disapeared from his Notebook? Apple store is US bound atm.

And your solution would also imply downloading several versions of the same file, why? I can get by with only one copy.

Also AAC DMR has been cracked so it won't be safe to put them for free access on the web, but if it was secure then... we need a lawer.

atm only WM9 DRM isn't cracked but no one sells WMA9Pro only standard, and Wma9pro could use some improvement. or they could sell an over 200 kbps files at which point no one can tell the difference.