[dragonwriter]

> You can take the stance that DRM is a good thing if it's protecting creators' rights and doesn't get in the way of consumers using the product.

You could, but there's a problem with that. Because DRM by nature can neither operate without getting in the way of consumers using the product, nor effectively protect creator's rights.

DRM is fundamentally and inherently bad, not as a moral proposition (though it may be that, too), but simply at what it is nominally intended to do.

[horseemergency]

My rebuttal to that is: Steam (which is appropriate because that's what got this discussion started in parent comments)

I've been a Steam user for 8ish years now, and it's never once gotten in the way of me playing games. The only downside that I can see is that you can't gift old games to friends (or sell them), and they're very upfront about that fact from day 1. They just recently made a change that allows you to share game libraries with friends/family actually, so that small gripe is going away.

It's hard to have a real discussion about DRM because it's like religion to a lot of people, and many are quick to dismiss DRM because it's not perfect. Saying "DRM is fundamentally and inherently bad...but simply at what it is nominally intended to do" isn't saying that DRM as a concept is bad, but that the past/present implementations have been bad. Dismissing the idea because a few implementations have failed doesn't seem very hackerish :)

The core of DRM is: Creators should be paid for the stuff they create, by the consumers of their stuff. There have been plenty of misguided attempts at this, for sure, but I think you'd have a hard time defending the counter position (especially if you want to have a morality discussion RE: DRM and not just a conceptual one)

[shmerl]

> The core of DRM is: Creators should be paid for the stuff they create, by the consumers of their stuff.

That's not the core idea, while it's often presented as such. The core idea is "we need to control consumers and limit what they can do with their digital goods, lest some piracy happens". That's why such idea is flawed from the beginning.

Saying that it failed because implementation wasn't perfect and more policing will help to solve the issue reminds me the story of the Watchbird: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579

Definitely read the whole thing if you didn't yet. What's hackish is not to be eager to implement even more draconian overreaching preemptive policing, but to understand from the start that it's a defective and unacceptable idea.

[shmerl]

> DRM is fundamentally and inherently bad, not as a moral proposition (though it may be that, too), but simply at what it is nominally intended to do.

Which often reflects the fact that DRM is used for completely other purposes. None of them good.

[dragonwriter]

It reflects the fact that DRM is a fundamentally incoherent concept -- you can't provide data and all the tools for legitimate users to access it freely and still deny illegitimate uses of the data.

[shmerl]

What I meant to say is, that often the real reasons behind using DRM are different from the stated ones (i.e. preventing piracy). And all of those reasons are bad. They usually are some of these:

1. Lack of common sense or just "following the herd" (Lysenkoism).

2. Covering one's incompetence. (Poor sales are blamed on piracy, and DRM is used as a demonstration that they are "doing something about it").

3. Controlling technology progress and direction (like standards poisoning and so on).

And etc.