[Fake51]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

In fact, DRM does not have to be about copy-making at all (which, as we all know, it fails miserably at anyway). But DRM can be used effectively to make sure that in most cases someone pays for a document they obtain, then leave them alone.

But can it? Isn't that quite an assumption to make? Haven't we already reached the point where you can easily get to tools to break most DRM schemes? Aren't there better ways of achieving that people pay?

As far as your original question: Of course I'd rather see a company spend its money on better quality content. On the other hand, you have to realize that such quality content is a popular target for thieves, no one wants to pay for content they can get for free, and companies want to make a profit... so we're back to companies trying to protect their premium content with DRM, a vicious circle. In other words, you either improve content AND create acceptable DRM to go with it... or you do neither, and easily-obtained basic content is often the result.

Here we disagree. You assume that people will be choosing between a) free and b) not free. But how many people in this thread alone have bought content while having access to the free content? I received a CD in the mail a couple of days ago - I could easily have leeched it from the net. According to your generalisation I should have taken the free version. Can you explain why I didn't?
Furthermore, at the current state of the internet it's not as if "bad content" is less available than "quality content" - if you want something you can find it. Quality content won't be more of a target than any other content (and if you don't believe, trawl through a few warez sites and write down the names you know compared with the names you don't know).
In short, the copies WILL be available on the internet for those who want to copy them, and the users that want to pay for content WILL keep doing so. DRM is not a necessary part of any of this.

DRM, like salt, is best when used sparingly. Using it to guarantee a sale is fine. After that, let the user do what they will. If the companies did this, and then pressed governments and ISPs to do their jobs to bolster the security of online documents, their time would be better served.

I disagree, as should be obvious by now. DRM is like DDT, best when not used at all.

Of course, improving online security is a wholly different can of worms, with the label "Big Brother" in bold, red letters emblazoned on it. But despite the fervent desire of many online users for 100% web anonymity, I've always felt that such a desire is unrealistic because it neuters online security. I expect (not "desire," not "hope for," but simply "expect") that, at some point, the web will be a lot less anonymous than it is now, and strictly for the benefit of businesses trying to protect their money, and governments trying to protect their secrets (ironic as that sounds).

I'm not too sure about this. The techies of the net have been working very hard to ensure anonymity - just take bittorrent encryption for one thing, plus what TPB and other torrent sites are doing to keep their users anonymous.
A lot of what is happening is taking a familiar route: the tech-savvy people come up with something that then spreads very quickly and empowers a whole bunch of people that are not tech-savvy.

But until that happens, you can't just expect companies to go 180 against every business rule they've ever known. Companies, by nature, do what works... and most of them let a very few pioneers try out new things, then jump on it after it becomes an unqualified success. DRM may not be perfect, but I don't see DRM going away until the companies find an alternative that they can believe in, however good or bad that alternative may be.

I expect companies to be interested in making profits. If this involves NOT using DRM I expect them to not use DRM. So far I can't see the case FOR DRM, hence I would expect them to not use DRM.
Unfortunately, the content industries don't seem to be very rational about things. They're doing a lot of things to piss off their consumers and very few things to make their consumers happy. THIS amounts to going "180 against every business rule" that I've ever known: keep your customers happy, keep them coming back for more.

Regards
Fake