[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

DRM is just another form of security, something I am pretty sure you live with every day, if you lock your house, mind traffic lights, use a credit card, own a phone or web account, and shop at stores with security cameras or guards or security strips in the products. It took time to develop that security for those things, but it was done, and people today accept them... I imagine you do too, every day. And if you can live with those, why is it so impossible to believe you could live with e-book DRM?

That is a valid point. But the issue here is that it's currently impossible to protect digital media with DRM without hurting the customer, and it's impossible for DRM to prevent piracy.

There is no difference between what is sold only with DRM and what is sold without DRM when it comes to what is available illegally. I honestly think the publishers either don't understand this or choose to ignore it so they can gouge customers now before the inevitible crash of their industry.

Security for a car is not the same as security for digital files. A car is a physical object subject to the laws of physics (e.g. if the door isn't locked a thief can get in). The locks on the doors are protecting me and my property, they are not protecting Ford from me selling my car when I'm finished with it or using my car for a purpose Ford didn't forsee or intend.

Security cameras are there to protect physical objects from being stolen. If a security camera prevented me from using a product I bought at a store when I got it home I would be mightily annoyed. But that's not possible. It doesn't affect the product I walk out of the store with at all.

Security strips are a little closer to DRM. They harm the product in the name of security. If you're not careful you could tear a book page removing them I suppose. A minor pain. But they are effective in preventing theft, something you can't attribute to DRM. And if the strip made the product unusable you could almost certainly get your money back.

DRM isn't intended to provide me with any benefit, especially not security. It only serves to place artificial limits on what I can do with my media and technology.

I feel very strongly that technological advancement is a good thing.

This is why I fail to see the logic in the argument that DRM is absolutely EVIL. And so far, none of the DRM detractors have convinced me that that is not the case.

DRM is not evil. It can be useful in certain cases (such as the Zune Pass example in my previous post).

The problem is that DRM only serves to restrict technology and frustrate users. The publishers need to work out a way to make money without it because whether they use it or not their products are going to be freely available without DRM illegally.

And yes, it may be possible one day for a DRM scheme to work. But I doubt it will happen. The music industry tried for a decade and failed. It's sad that the publishing industry is largely choosing to ignore the mistakes that have almost certainly cost the music industry millions of dollars a year due to alienated customers who turned to Napster and 'forgot' their instinct to pay for their music.