In this thread, people are arguing over pirating and DRM inevitably came up.
Some people think that purchasing DRM-protected content appropriately rewards both the publisher and the artist, and that buying this content prevents/reduces the need to develop more rigorous DRM-like protections. Presumably, DRM is, first, a reaction to the rampant digital pirating of the last decade, and opponents of digital piracy in all its forms feel that DRM and systems like it are appropriate reactions.
Others think that buying content via a publisher that uses DRM merely validates incredibly inconvenient systems like DRM for future media. They seem to argue that pirating DRM-protected content is a good way to rebel against “the system” and show the publishers that there is a market-based need to ditch digital protections that (to quote) “alienate” the legal buyers.
But in the long run, who is right?
Would mass pirating of DRM-protected products convince publishers to turn to a more organic system? Or will it only increase the number of products that publishers try to protect with DRM-type protections/increase their inconvenience?
Or if most – save for a small underground – people cough up the money for DRM-protected content, would that be sufficient in the eyes of publishers to halt the development of even stricter DRM controls? Will publishers be motivated by this show of goodwill from their buyers to reduce the inconvenience of those programs?
What say ye, dopers?
(I tried to stay impartial here, but I did just spend 3 hours trying to fix a DRM problem with Windows Media Player and a product I bought over a year ago. )
Well, Napster used to use DRM on its purchased tracks, but now, you can buy unprotected MP3 files from them for 99 cents. I think that will be the future, since DRM has proven to be a far greater inconvenience to legitimate users than to pirates. If anyone thinks DRM will actually prevent music piracy, I’ve got two words for you: Total Recorder. But why pirate when you can buy for just 99 cents?
The missing link here is purchasing non-protected media. That’s what absolutely, without a doubt provides a disincentive for folks to use DRM on the media they’re selling. Anything else can be interpreted either way (either “The DRM isn’t working; we should get rid of it” or “The DRM isn’t working; we should make it stronger”).
Its pretty obvious when something that has not worked even one single time ever keeps getting pushed out over and over again that there might be some other ulterior motive behind it. Pirates make a great excuse when people refuse to buy shitty unfinished games, developers never have to admit failure anymore when they have a bogey man they can blame for everything. DRM isn’t there to stop pirates, its there to make sure when a customer wants a game they have to buy it brand new.
DRM has nothing to do with pirating. I’m not sure that any consumer strategy will have a large effect on the course of DRM. Other than, say, suing when crap like the SONY CD malware type thing happens, or massive pressure on legislators for reform of the law.
I guess the best thing to do, assuming legality isn’t an issue for someone is to:
Where there is a choice between DRM and non DRM, try to support non DRM.
Where there is no choice, pick whichever one is personally more convenient. If it’s easier to get a real copy and the DRM isn’t a major hassle, get that. If the DRM is a major hassle that obstructs normal use, then either just download the cracked copy (to punish DRM), or download the cracked copy so you have a version that is usable, but still buy a real copy so the creator gets paid and stick the real copy on a shelf somewhere.
)