[debate] Let's discuss DRM

[Alan Light]

I cut my last response too short.  My apologies.

To continue:

Imri wrote:
"To sum up the debate so far, I think there are two main issues:
1. Does DRM work?
2. Given that it does, should DRM be used?

I think 1 is so far undecided, though I'm leaning towards that it works in the common case - which is probably good enough.
Regarding 2, I think it is so far agreed that DRM could be used if one wanted to use it (as it is one's choice), but it is undecided whether or not it will have desireable results.

So I'll rephrase:
1. Does DRM technically work? (i.e., does it prevent most people from doing the things the publisher didn't intend to be done with the DRM-ed content?)
2. Does using DRM achieve the desired results? (i.e. probably more sales...)"



That's a good summary.

1.  Yes, DRM prevents the average commercial user from doing things the publisher didn't intend to be done with DRM-ed content, however it does little to nothing to stop moderately sophisticated users . . .

2.  . .. . which is a problem, because they will simply make unprotected copies and pass them on, thereby bypassing the publisher entirely with a better product, which will be the preferred version for those average commercial users who wish to do as they like with the product.  Plus, there is the whole "fuck you" factor which may well lead to decreased sales of even popular items, as would-be customers deliberately avoid paying for an item because they figure that if they are going to be treated as criminals, they may as well act like criminals.  "If you do the time, you might as well do the crime."

There may still be narrow circumstances where DRM may be useful, but I think it is counterproductive as a rule.



Alan


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090523/bc206cf3/attachment.htm>