Slashdot Mirror
The Real Purpose of DRM
Jeremy Allison - Sam writes "Ian Hickson, author and maintainer of the HTML5 specification, comments about the real reasons for DRM. They're not what you might think. Ian nails it in my opinion. He wrote, 'The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices. Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted. ... Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a black or gray market curiosity."
That is a half correct view. There is a lot of DRM content that is free, other that is kept reasonably low (like netflix streaming) Copyright holders do have a right to control what happens to their content. Quit being a petulant child and be willing to pay for your candy. As for hardware manufacturers. Consider, Sony is also a content producer. Several other manufacturers own a piece of content production. At the very least they don't want a trade war.
How much is the RIAA paying you?
The purpose of DRM is to supplement the diminishing faith that the content makers have traditionally placed in the strength of the copyright claim alone to keep people from copying the work without authorization.
If you business model is failing, change it. Change it or die. It seems like you think that the media industries should get special protection from their failing business practice. Why? What makes them so special? Should my grandpa's old nursery (for plants, not children) get propped up by legislation because his 1940's way of running things doesn't work anymore? Absolutely not, he should go out of business or adapt. Same with media companies.
...people are no longer adhering to their side of that contract
What fucking contract? This is entertainment. There's nothing necessary about blockbuster movies and pop albums. You prop up the industry as if America (and the world) would crumble without it. That is not the case.