[fubarred]

From considering the demand-side point-of-view only, I would tend to agree. It gives content distributors a false sense of control at the expense of complicating the average customers' lives. ("Penny-wise, pound-foolish" like a neighborhood coffee shop that requires a key to use the restroom and doesn't put out napkins whereas the Starbucks next door making far more money does neither.)

From the supply-side point-of-view (film maker, movie theater, on-demand service), it depends. Artists can choose to release for free like The Beastie Boys are other doing, knowing enough people will still buy the retail package to keep them afloat. But to see your blood, sweat and tears shared without people paying a dime, might be tough. It's further complicated because you don't want to tick off freeloaders that can be converted to customers or whom happen to be major customers in same-brand products/services.

Both taken together, it's becomes a self-selecting, personal choice to vote with one's wallet.

[famousactress]

Cory's book is written specifically for the content creators (slash distributors), not the demand side. He handily makes the argument that DRM is an inherently and objectively Bad Thing for them, bar none.

The problem is you're presenting a false choice "Release for free, or release with DRM and get paid". In truth, that's not quite what happens. Instead DRM hurts sales, and lack of DRM helps (or at least doesn't hurt) them... and I'd challenge you to find any time-tested evidence to the contrary.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Instead DRM hurts sales, and lack of DRM helps (or at least doesn't hurt) them... and I'd challenge you to find any time-tested evidence to the contrary.

The math on this is very straight forward. Very few of the pirates the DRM stops go out and pay instead, but 100% of the customers who don't buy your product because the DRM sucks are actual lost sales. This is basic supply and demand. Offer free chocolate and everyone will be filling up the back of their trucks with it, but charge $1 and you'll be lucky if each person even buys one bar. Even less when it comes out that you've made it hard to eat. Worse, all but the first pirate are getting the DRM-stripped version from the first pirate but all your paying customers are getting the annoying DRM version.

And to add insult to injury, you have to spend money to build and maintain the DRM system -- unless you outsource it to someone like Apple or Amazon, in which case they become a toll collector that sits between you and your customers.

It's like paying someone to chase away your customers.

[TD-Linux]

What DRM system has actually been effective in reducing piracy? I think the more modern usage of DRM is aimed at market segmentation and control, which might also be in the best interest of supply.

However, these DRM systems require the user to use an unknown, "black box" decrypter to keep the content out of their hands. This wouldn't bother me if you could choose to not use the black box (as they are inherently insecure, obviously the decryption key can be extracted and used without the black box), but that is currently illegal. Therefore, I don't consider the current usage of DRM to be ethical.

I would actually be more supportive of DRM if it stood by its own merits - without government backing to try to paper over broken implementations.