Originally Posted by murraypaul
DRM is inconvenient, and annoys innocent paying customers.
It also is effective in accomplishing what the publishers want, which is preventing casual sharing by people with no tech skills who would otherwise see nothing wrong with it.
I've seen this in conversations with co-workers, one was discussing a book he had just finished, and said (almost verbatim) "I'd lend it to you, but the Kindle doesn't let me"[0]. With no DRM, he would have passed the file on, and seen nothing wrong with it, he would have done the same if it was a physical book.
The purpose of DRM is to make it obvious that you are not meant to take a certain step, and that you have to do something of at best questionable legality to do so. That will stop the majority of casual users from doing it. Not because they can't, but because they choose not to, because they think it is wrong.
In the same way, anti-copy CDs worked, anti-copy DVDs worked, and copy-protection on video games worked. Not because they are fool-proof, they aren't. Not because they stop the content being immediately available on torrents, they don't. But because most people won't voluntarily break the law. DRM means that they have to take an active step to copy the content, one that most people cannot rationalise away, and so will not take that step.
It isn't a technical barrier, it is a moral one.
[0]: Kindle lending is only enabled in the US, and only one time anyway.
|