|
I think an important realization to make, is that you can't fully stop behaviour that you find unethical. If somebody has an incentive for doing it, then it's going to happen, somewhere, somehow, in some way. Therefore, the equation changes - it's not about what least accomodates those with (in your view) unethical behaviour, but about what most accomodates those with ethical behaviour. That is why highways and Tor make sense, from an ethical point of view, despite them being used for things you ethically disagree with - because those things would happen regardless (there's incentive after all), and you're simply making ethical behaviour easier. A similar equation applies to DRM, actually, and to why it doesn't and can't work. Those with 'bad' intentions (ie. pirates) have the incentive to break it anyway - financial incentive for commercial pirates, "for the fun of it" for non-commercial pirates. Your actual customers, however, don't have that incentive, and to them it's an insurmountable wall that they can't get over, even though all they wanted to do was fix a bug that you as a vendor hadn't had time to follow up on yet. Not using DRM wouldn't change anything about the 'unethical' behaviour - they were going to pirate it anyway - but it would make things better for those with 'ethical' behaviour. |
Also, I think the whole drm analogy doesn't work in this case, though I do see where your coming from.
With my problem, the equivalent would be if adding drm made it automatically easier and safer for pirates, not just crippling legit users...