Security optimize

DRM is counterproductive

The problems with DRM are many. It not only punishes legitimate customers, it often fails to stop pirates and costs a lot of money for the distributor to develop and deploy; it is also counterproductive.

Digital rights management (DRM) software is a touchy topic. The issue of DRM is surrounded by a lot of noisy debate over what constitute the rights of content creators, distributors, and consumers; the practical value it can provide; the relationship between industries that make heavy use of copyright and the governments that make and enforce copyright law; and the security implications of DRM for content consumers.

DRM software itself is generally regarded as an onerous, unfair imposition on content consumers by those consumers. In contrast, distributors who use DRM generally regard it as security software, providing "security" for a revenue model rather than for anything tangible. The biggest problem with regarding it as security software is the fact that it is usually counterproductive. While the philosophical considerations in the debate are interesting and important, for purposes of deciding whether we should use DRM they can probably wait until we sort out whether it even offers the benefits content distributors expect.

In a recent article by Jack Wallen, he asked Shouldn't Linux embrace DRM? He supports the basic premise of the article with arguments that are exceedingly common among proponents of strict copyright enforcement in general and, more specifically, DRM. Many of his statements revolve around the idea that content creators cannot get paid if they do not take measures to ensure that every single person who enjoys the creator's work pays for it through standard, corporate channels. Anyone who has not paid, according to this perspective, should be prevented from enjoying the work. Worse, the common take on this perspective is that anyone who manages to slip through the cracks and enjoys it without paying should be dragged into court, stripped of thousands of dollars of money the person probably hasn't even earned yet, and possibly thrown in jail.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but . . . poppycock.

Scarcity, in economic terms, is an essential component in determining the price the market will bear for a particular good. The market price of a good is part of what determines its value to the seller; the rest is mostly how much the seller wants to keep it. While creating the first copy of a copyrightable work is often quite heavily dependent on labor and expertise, the cost of producing functional copies of the original rapidly approaches zero as technology advances. In the case of costs dropping due to economies of scale, efficiencies of expertise, and specialized equipment access for making physical products, it usually costs a lot more for a consumer to make a copy of something he or she bought from a retail outlet than it does for the manufacturer to make a copy. This difference in price is what makes it worthwhile for someone to buy something that somebody else made.

Copyrightable works are a completely different story, because the cost to produce copies of a digital media file of some sort is near zero -- not just for the creator or distributor, but for the consumer as well. The kind of business model that relies on strict copyright enforcement exists only because scarcity is maintained by artificial means, primarily through enforcement of laws. It is thus predicated upon the assumption that there is nothing wrong with artificial scarcity as the basis of rent-seeking behavior. The truth of the matter is that there is actually something wrong with it. There are, in fact, several things wrong:

  1. It really annoys customers, making them less likely to be your customer and more likely to be a competitor's. If you think competition does not work like that, you probably have never thought about the fact that many people make decisions every day based on which author, TV series producer, or musician gets their attention. Just as radio stations get tuned out in favor of other stations when they have too many commercials, so do authors get passed up for ebook purchases in favor of other authors whose writings do not come with DRM. Attention is the driver of profit for content creators; good luck with your business model of telling people you do not want their attention.
  2. Free distribution is free advertising. Do you know what launched Microsoft as a software company back in its very early days? I do. It was the piracy of the Microsoft BASIC implementation for the Altair home computer, as described in Steven Levy's book Hackers. The most financially successful documentary creator right now got there by encouraging piracy (and asking people who liked it to give him money after the fact). Many bands are making much more money giving away their albums in digital formats (asking for what amounts to donations instead of demanding retail payment) than they ever did selling their music outright -- including Harvey Danger, Nine Inch Nails, Prince, and Radiohead, as well as a bunch of smaller artists who could never even get signed with a major label. Authors such as Cory Doctorow, Eric Raymond, Neil Gaiman, and several writers for O'Reilly ensure that their books are not only sold for money, but also given away for free in digital form, and make a living as writers nonetheless (to the extent they keep writing, of course).
  3. On a more personal note, I am a writer. I write fiction, I write articles for TechRepublic (obviously), I write RPG materials, I write software (as you might already know), and I am working on ideas for a couple of nonfiction books. I make money at some of these writing activities, I hope to make money at others in time, and do not seek to (directly) make money at whatever is left. If I use DRM for these things, I will exclude a lot of my potential audience. By doing so, I might make more money per person who makes use of what I create because of reducing the number of users by which I would have to divide my total revenue, but I would almost certainly make less money overall because free distribution is free advertising. Another problem arises, too: I would simply be known for the quality of my work to fewer people. A real artist, almost by definition, is not someone who wants to limit his or her works to a very small number of people who pay money for it. He or she wants people to appreciate his or her works. Distribution is not just advertising; it is also the purest reward for creating. I may not be "a real artist", but I share many of the same motivations at least. If I create something and someone loves it enough to want to share it with a friend (or even, benevolently, with strangers), I consider that the greatest compliment my audience can pay me, and I count myself lucky. Just as imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, sharing -- what you might call "piracy" -- is the sincerest form of appreciation of my work. I would much rather be pirated than ignored.

An author whose name should be familiar to many readers of this article has an interesting tale to tell of the evolution of his views on copyright enforcement where his books are concerned:

Places where I was being pirated . . . I was selling more and more books. People were discovering me through being pirated, and then they were going out and buying the real books.

He went on to explain that, after an experiment that involved making his novel American Gods available on the Web in its entirety for a month, measured sales of his books "went up 300%." While Cory Doctorow gets most of the attention among novelists and short fiction writers who give away their stories for free in digital formats -- in part, surely, because he actually writes science fiction about the future of copyright law sometimes -- Neil Gaiman has increasingly become an effective advocate for permissive distribution of copyrightable works.

For the whole monologue from which I mined the above quote, watch this video posted to YouTube by the Open Rights Group:

(View the video at YouTube here.)

The moral of the story he tells is obvious; so-called piracy is just the modern age's answer to used book sales, borrowing, and library access for people who want to experience and discover the works of authors whose writing they had never read before. People do not usually discover their favorite authors by going to the store and buying a random novel by an author they have not encountered before. Given these circumstances, perfect DRM -- perfectly ensuring that only one person would ever get the chance to read a particular book -- would be perfectly disastrous. When readers share their favorite novels with others, they are in effect providing a service for the publisher in the form of the most effective advertising available.

In addition to that, providing media to customers without any DRM keeps them happy, which makes them much more likely to come back for more.

About

Chad Perrin is an IT consultant, developer, and freelance professional writer. He holds both Microsoft and CompTIA certifications and is a graduate of two IT industry trade schools.

59 comments
app protection
app protection

Interesting article. DRM is a hot topic and one that will continue to be of great debate in the digital media world as the number of devices and distribution channels continues to grow. Developers must protect their content, yet not be intrusive to the consumer experience. Hackers are getting even more sophisticated in their ???work,??? thus giving rise to the need to protect the protection (securing DRM). Lots of issues and lots of opinions. I encourage everyone who is interested in learning the latest with DRM or wants to give their feedback on the issue to visit the LinkedIn Group ???DRM and Standards??? at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=3316559&trk=anet_ug_hm. Chad, your article is posted on the Group page which is already generating some good interest among the members. Thanks, Jodi Wadhwa VP, Marketing Arxan (www.arxan.com)

JCitizen
JCitizen

I never liked those ideas of economy. For me Netfilx means I can shitcan my terabyte drive, and get rid of cable forever - at least until net neutrality ends.

dkennerly
dkennerly

and I payed for Netflix, only to find the Internet portion of the deal wouldn't work because the Linux DRM stack is different from non-free OS's. So I had to pirate windows and virtualize to watch instantly.

JCitizen
JCitizen

that is DRM on Vista x64!! I've been fighting it for more than two years now, and am only now getting a functional media center. I can see why folks are suing HP over the Pavilion Elite series of desktop PCs. Especially the CTOs that were required for cable content around 2008. I hear the DRM has been reduced, dumbed down, or "improved" since then - maybe MPAA and IAA got smart since then. I wouldn't wish this nightmare on my enemies! I can't imagine a non-technical person trying to enjoy protected content in this environment. I now realize why people use cracked content! It is the only way to get the crap to work!!! X-(

jkameleon
jkameleon

Protection of my own computer against me is not the kind of protection I'd want.

apotheon
apotheon

Somewhere along the way, the embedded Neil Gaiman video got lost. It's back now.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Someone will claim you're "trying to remove DRM"... which is a crime. What's worse, they'll look again and see that every even half-critical thinker in the world has "the tools of the crime" for that; and then all the best and brightest will be doing time in short order!

SKDTech
SKDTech

A lot of people seem to disregard the difference between someone who chooses to give their stuff away for free and someone who has chosen to ask for compensation for their labors. I am all for legitimate freebies, but the real problem is people is who decide that just because they can get something without paying for it then they shouldn't have to even though the creator may not have chosen to release his product for free. It is up to the creator of a product whether or not it is free, not the consumer. If the creator wants more money for it than you think it is worth then don't buy it. I honestly think that digital distribution is overpriced in the majority of cases. After all, how much does it cost to have and ebook on a server, ready to be bought? It can't cost as much as printing, shipping and storing hardcopy. But that would not justify me illegally gaining access to any books I wanted to read but didn't feel like paying for. And of course, if I want an author to continue writing the tales I enjoy, a programmer to continue developing the games I play, or bands to continue to create new music I want to listen to then I don't have a problem paying a reasonable price for the fruits of their labors. It is only fair as they have to be able to put food in their mouths and keep roofs over their heads. "People do not usually discover their favorite authors by going to the store and buying a random novel by an author they have not encountered before." Funny that is how I have discovered most of my favorite authors.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

you and Neil and Prince made the choice as content creators regarding how you wanted to distribute your work. Using a different method or mechanism may well be counterproductive. That doesn't mean those who choose it give up their protection under the existing copyright laws, or that those who find it onerous can bypass it without expectation of legal consequences.

Slayer_
Slayer_

A large number of artists are embracing Youtube to share their music, DeviantArt is a great example of artists showing off their work for free. Music bands make their money in concerts anyways, not CD sales. The free exchange of media is a good thing. A friend is going to lend me some of his old PS2 games. Why should this be piracy? Under the typical DRM, it is...

JCitizen
JCitizen

I've been looking for an excuse to join Linkedin.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

You HAD to? What would have happened if you hadn't? Would the world have ended? Would your mother's soul been condarned to Heck? Would National Lampoon have shot that dog? You failed to research whether an application would work with your preferred operating system (a requirement regardless of app and OS), and that's your justification for breaking the law?

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Netflix uses Silverlight due to it currently having better video streaming quality than other options. Silverlight uses Microsoft's PlayReady DRM. Microsoft has allowed the Moonlight *nix implementation of Silverlight but does not allow the implementation of PlayReady DRM within it. You'll see many appliances like the Tivo, PS3 and Wii which actually run a *nix OS underneath that also have a Netflix client so the problem is not at all one of incompatible technology. It's purely imposed by Microsoft's political choice to not allow PlayReady on unblessed alternative platforms it they compete with in the OS product category. It would be interesting to see how fast "Netflix for Linux" appeared in Linux based distributions if MS chose to stop using the DRM to hinder competition in the OS market.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I heard folks were having luck with that. I've thought about it myself, but since I support Windows for clients, I went ahead and took the slings and arrows to find out how to make this Rube Goldberg contraption work! :(

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

A store boxed copy of the software so you have the license. A cracked copy of the software so you can actually use the content you own a license for.

apotheon
apotheon

I detect shades of Harrison Bergeron in that hypothetical future -- a future of surreal believability, given the direction of copyright law.

apotheon
apotheon

We now have a very clear view of your opinion on the subject of copyright itself. Great. That was not the topic of the article in any way, shape, or form, however. What do you think about the actual topic -- that of the practical effectiveness of DRM and business models that would seem to make DRM a good idea? > "People do not usually discover their favorite authors by going to the store and buying a random novel by an author they have not encountered before." Funny that is how I have discovered most of my favorite authors. You are a very odd duck. I don't even buy technical books that way. I go to a local bookstore and thumb through a book, reading bits of it to determine whether it will be any good, or at least read excerpts via things like Amazon's offering of looks inside books before buying, when pondering the purchase of something for which I have no previous experience of the people who created it. I don't just buy a book based on nothing but price, title, and cover art. I don't have that much money to throw away, especially considering that 98% of the books out there are crap. If you just pick up a book and buy it without any knowledge of its contents apart from what can be inferred by what's on the cover, you are either a very wealthy person or very impulsive and unthoughtful about purchases.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

Regardless of your beliefs or ideals, when your business model depends on preventing the advance of media-sharing technology, it's doomed. Better find a way to go with the flow.

apotheon
apotheon

My point was not about the monopoly privileges granted by copyright law, themselves. I specifically tried to focus the topic on the effectiveness of DRM, a question with an answer that is probably counterintuitive for most content distributors: > While the philosophical considerations in the debate are interesting and important, for purposes of deciding whether we should use DRM they can probably wait until we sort out whether it even offers the benefits content distributors expect. Whether one chooses to employ DRM does not, as you point out, change the legal realities of copyright. This does not strike me as particularly relevant to the article I wrote, though.

XJDHDR
XJDHDR

I have never seen any DRM scheme that prevents you from borrowing and lending out PS2 games. And anyway, the entire cause of DRM is piracy. Therefore, the logical thing to do if you are serious about getting rid of DRM is to stop piracy. Before you argue that piracy is free advertising, there is no evidence that supports the idea that advertising from piracy will noticeably increase the number of sales of the pirated media, rather than more piracy. The extra advertising [i]may[/i] help bring a larger audience to a concert, but what about industries that rely almost entirely on selling this stuff that gets pirated (video games, for example).

apotheon
apotheon

> You HAD to? What would have happened if you hadn't? Would the world have ended? Would your mother's soul been condarned to Heck? Would National Lampoon have shot that dog? I guess the Netflix money would have been completely wasted. Sucks to be that guy. > You failed to research whether an application would work with your preferred operating system It's not a very widely-known fact that Moonlight doesn't support PlayReady. I could easily see someone -- even someone who is very technically knowledgeable -- making such a mistake.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I keep reading of HTML5 replacing many video standards lately, but I doubt playing silverlight is one of them.

apotheon
apotheon

I'm not aware of any capability for MythTV to work with Netflix.

mckinnej
mckinnej

I've been following this procedure for almost every game I've bought in the last 10 years. My main gripe is I really don't want to hear the CD drive spinning all the time, so I grab a No-CD crack and then enjoy the game without all the noise. If I could buy a version without DRM I would. I despise DRM. That's why I don't have a BluRay player in my house and probably never will.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

They'll say, "all original thought is derivative of someone's intellectual property - so original thinkers must pay - or cease and desist!"

XJDHDR
XJDHDR

I find that reading a review on something is usually the best way to determine whether I actually want it.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

So what? Isn't it just business evolution in action? It's not like there isn't an alternative business model already in place. It's not as if everything in the petroleum distillation channel disappeared overnight with no established replacements.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Very few people steal something because they can steal it, the majority of people steal things because they can't have it otherwise, either because its unavailable (Location/abandonware/unpopularity), or too expensive (Photoshop is a great example, Windows is another.)

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

The studies investigate the claims by the media industry that claim loss of sales and jobs cirectly related to copyright infringement. The figures presented by the media industry are grossly exagerated and bias towards a specific agenda. Have you seen any such research made available for peer review? A popular aproach is to count dollar value sales while ignoring price changes per unit and unit sales. How do you know if sales have decreased when you don't bother to count the units sold? Oh right.. the purpose of the "research" (not available for peer review) is to support an agenda. In Australia, http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/piracy-are-we-being-conned-20110322-1c4cs.html But despite the presence of internet piracy, is the local industry actually suffering? The results are mixed. The Australian box office set its third consecutive record in 2010, reporting revenues of $1.128 billion ??? a 4 per cent increase on the previous result. Figures released by the Australian Recording Industry Association show that, between 2009 and 2010, although the quantity of music sold rose almost 10 per cent, the dollar value of these sales dropped from $446 million to $384 million. Sales of DVDs, Blu-ray discs and other packaged media are holding strong, with 2010 revenues at $1.29 billion ??? just 6 per cent lower than in 2009. Mr Cranswick believes shifting the blame for lost sales on to piracy betrays a deficit of "imagination and insight" by the entertainment industry. In Japan, they've seen an increase in sales of Anime due to copyright infringement. Sales of box sets are increasing because more people are seeing the content through alternate channels then going out and buying the DVDs.

apotheon
apotheon

> Before you argue that piracy is free advertising, there is no evidence that supports the idea that advertising from piracy will noticeably increase the number of sales of the pirated media, rather than more piracy. Incorrect. The evidence is everywhere. DRM is counterproductive.

apotheon
apotheon

> it doesn't justify pirating software I guess that depends on your philosophical perspective. Maybe, in this case, it's consistent with a philosophy of agorism.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

it doesn't justify pirating software. Cancel the subscription if it isn't compatible with your system. They don't even have a minimum contract period, do they?

Slayer_
Slayer_

They just promise not to charge you for the first month. For 8 dollars a month, my folks absolutly love it, all their crappy old movies and TV shows, and no ad's.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

for the purposes of this discussion, I went to their web site. It says '30 day free trial' in a big box on their home page and several other sub-pages.

apotheon
apotheon

I do not have, nor have I ever had, a Netflix subscription.

Slayer_
Slayer_

That should be more than enough time to discover it doesn't work.

JCitizen
JCitizen

so I should have thought about that. At least none I'm aware of. I shouldn't think HTML5 tricks would be sufficient either. I really think it would be a nightmare...with MCards anyway. So I really don't know how effective it is as a media center other than just watching and recording off the air; and even then, the information is scarce.

seanferd
seanferd

just how many people follow that procedure. A lot of "infringement" being done out there is just citizen consumers enforcing Fair Use themselves.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I used to work for companies that paid you royalties if you came up with an idea on the shop floor. I looked at the work contract before I signed. However, I've given most of my ideas away. I'm funny that way. At least it was more enjoyable to work for such institutions.

jck
jck

actually do that...if you work for them, any original conceptions you develop they consider theirs...even if you conceived it before working there. That's why I went to a job where I have to think less. :D Gives me more time to think about why DRM in Windows Media Player forces my legally-digitized audio file of my Lenny Kravitz CD to take 20-25 seconds just to start playing on my laptop. Gotta love Tech.

apotheon
apotheon

That seems to be XJDHDR's modus operandi.

seanferd
seanferd

The goalposts were shifted.

apotheon
apotheon

I thought we were talking about content that is subject to copyright. Reviews of devices are a matter of things like objectively measurable performance and reliability, and not of taste.

XJDHDR
XJDHDR

As a recent example, I was trying to determine the CPU I want to buy for a hardware upgrade I want to do in the near future. One magazine I used to subscribe to has a "Dream Machine" section that advertised the Intel Core i7 980x as the most powerful CPU you can buy, though it costs ~$1000. My primary interest is PC gaming so I thought that this would be overkill. Sure enough, some research found that the Core i7 2600 would work just as well for a fraction of the price at ~$250. After that, my dream CPU changed again when I read a review for the Core i5 2500. This one costs ~$180 for a slightly reduced frequency, less cache and no hyperthreading, none of which would noticeably impact on a game's FPS.

apotheon
apotheon

> I find that reading a review on something is usually the best way to determine whether I actually want it. I find that reviews mostly expose the reader's biases. They help a little, but they're far from reliable measures of the quality (according to my own biases, naturally) of a book.

apotheon
apotheon

Copyright infringement is a violation of the law. Theft is a violation of the law. Rape is a violation of the law. I just don't want people using "rape" to refer to theft, "theft" to refer to copyright infringement, or "copyright infringement" to refer to rape.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"Please stop using the word "steal" when what you mean is "infringe copyright" or something to that effect." Can we agree it's breaking the law?

apotheon
apotheon

> If you can live without an obviously discrectionary purchase, don't buy it. I do that a lot. Most people don't, though. I guess they can't live without it. They'd rather pay money for the DRMed content, then download a crack. They do this two or three times, then start downloading cracks when they don't buy things. I think DRM actually turns people into pirates, to some extent. > Part of the problem lies with those who won't forgo having their toys and choose to steal them. Please stop using the word "steal" when what you mean is "infringe copyright" or something to that effect. It's not stealing. Calling it stealing contributes to obfuscation of the actual issue. > Burning oil is at least as outdated as DRM, but it carries on because there's no suitable replacement infrastructure. Part of the problem is that petroleum has a very, very high (power output) to (mass and power input) ratio. There isn't really anything else that compares, at present, regardless of infrastructure. That's what makes fusion power plants so impractical (so far): the power input requirement to maintain a power generating reaction is incredible. Thanks for clarifying.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

for both the slow response and my usual poor phrasing. While not doomed from the beginning, DRM models -may- be greatly diminished by the rise of other methods, eventually. The prosecution of the innocent is one factor that will hasten that demise. The innocent have an option to avoid being swept up with the guilty - don't buy DRM material. (That was the main point of my 'So what?' comment; entertainment media isn't a necessity. If you can live without an obviously discrectionary purchase, don't buy it.) If enough choose to do so, those who use DRM will either change models or go out of business. Part of the problem lies with those who won't forgo having their toys and choose to steal them. This gives the DRM model the crutches of laws purchased with their purchased with their lobbying dollars to prop it up, instead of dying purely as the result of abandonment by the market. My poorly worded point regarding petroleum was two-fold. First was a comparison between the petroleum and entertainment media distribution systems. The unprotected download model already exists as a replacement for the DRM method, along with electronic distribution channels. Burning oil is at least as outdated as DRM, but it carries on because there's no suitable replacement infrastructure. (Yeah, I know; both the RIAA and Big Oil have deep pockets and plenty of lobbyists compared to their alternatives.) My other point was intended to be a comparison of the necessity of petroleum fuels vs entertainment media. More people in the developed world can get by more easily without DRM-protected materials than petroleum-based fuels. If one media distribution model fails and the other is slow to compensate, the impact is far less than a failure of the more essential petroleum chain, and oil's alternatives aren't yet capable of replacing it. In retrospect, my comparison strays farther from Chad's original point than I intended. Yesterday was a long morning on top of a short night, and I probably should have reviewed the post more thoroughly before hitting the button. Me? I don't purchase much media and almost never transfer it across formats. I don't think I have a dog in the fight and usually buy without concern for DRM or the lack of it.

apotheon
apotheon

> What Palmetto is trying to say is that if business models that rely on DRM are doomed from the beginning, then - given enough time - those business models will eventually disappear and be replaced with business models that are more appropriate. That's the way things work. Yes, it is. In the meantime, though, people using DRM to punish the innocent in a futile effort to also catch the guilty in an overly broad net are doing nothing but harm. As Sterling said, "Better find a way to go with the flow." Given Sterling's essential message -- that fighting the inevitable in this case does nothing but harm, to oneself as well as to others -- your interpretation of Palmetto's words does nothing to mitigate the apparent irrelevancy as a response to Sterling. I also think your interpretation is a little bit off the mark, in that it ignores the implications of this statement of his: > > It's not as if everything in the petroleum distillation channel disappeared overnight with no established replacements. That suggests to me that, rather than agreeing with Sterling's estimation of the approach of the evolutionary dead end for strict copyright enforcement, Palmetto meant to convey a belief that it is enforcement that evolves. He didn't say that petroleum as an energy source was going away slowly: he said that a particular method for rendering it usable as an efficient energy source was going away slowly, in a transition to other means of achieving the same thing. Of course, maybe he did mean that strict copyright enforcement was going away completely. It's difficult to determine his intent without further input from him. > I personally don't believe these business models will ever completely disappear due to the fact that they just work for certain industries. They have worked due in large part to the state of relevant technologies. Technology is changing. Eventually, technological advancement will change everything, if we don't stop it (catastrophically) first. I haven't read the entire article you linked, yet, but I've started it. So far, I see nothing that suggests I'll learn anything shockingly new from it. I've been following (and thinking about) technological advancement, ethics, and copyright for a long time. An overly wordy beginner's guide is unlikely to contribute much to my understanding of the situation. I'll read it, though, and give it a chance.

XJDHDR
XJDHDR

What Palmetto is trying to say is that if business models that rely on DRM are doomed from the beginning, then - given enough time - those business models will eventually disappear and be replaced with business models that are more appropriate. That's the way things work. I personally don't believe these business models will ever completely disappear due to the fact that they just work for certain industries. I might elaborate in a later post but for now, I present this article: http://tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html EDIT: And one more thing, I didn't write the above article. It is one that I spotted a while ago and grabbed my attention.

apotheon
apotheon

I'm not sure what you mean by "so what?" in this context. That's sorta the point of the article. Your comment reads something like this: 1. Someone writes an article that says "Osama bin Laden was killed and buried at sea." 2. Someone comments, saying something like "Osama bin Laden is a great advocate for killing Americans, if you're into that kind of thing." 3. Sterling says "He's still dead, though." 4. You say "Okay, so he's dead. So what? It's not like the Kim Jong-il of North Korea likes Westerners now." I don't get it.

apotheon
apotheon

If you keep an eye on the IT Security column for a week or two, you should see it when it appears (assuming the editor doesn't reject it).

apotheon
apotheon

It's not "stealing". It's "copyright infringement". My frustration at this ongoing, widespread error in terminology has prompted me to write an article that, as part of its thrust, directly addresses the problem of abusing terms like that. In the middle of writing it, I paused to read some discussion at TR, and I found this. It never ends.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

... could that be why their sales are dropping too? Naw, I mean, who ever grows fed up with unimaginative, trite repetitions of the obvious? ;)