[kebos]

DRM is a requirement of the insurance providers who insure distributors and pay out if the distributor leads to the content being leaked.

In reality the DRM technology isn't that important its more akin to the questionnaire you get for car insurance that says do you have a thatcham alarm.

Too much analysis looks at this from technical angle when it's really an insurers tool to lower their risk (only to lower it!).

It's not a big deal when a device/content is compromised merely a policy pays out in the background to the provider to the effect of % lost revenue. All normal insurance ruled apply, payout decided by expert witness, higher premiums for less secure devices etc.

[zucker42]

> DRM is a requirement of the insurance providers who insure distributors and pay out if the distributor leads to the content being leaked.

Do you have any evidence of such insurance policies existing? I've never heard of them before. It seems strange considering that most pieces of content are leaked fairly quickly.

[kebos]

The contracts and indemnity policies drawn up against the contract aren't public things so there is no example I can show.

The leaking of content doesn't matter that much unless it really affects revenues in the scale of the revenues.

It's ironic really. The absolute prevention of leaking content isn't expected. DRM is more like making sure the front door isn't wide open.

[alisonkisk]

But why does insurance require it?