Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
DRM is needed just so that it exists, whether or not it is "breakable by editing source-code." Some 'locking' mechanism needs to be in-place, even if it can be bypassed, just to "keep the honest people out."
As this thread has been resurrected...
I disagree. DRM is unnecessary, and can have the opposite effect (at least, if badly implemented). A very law-abiding gamer friend of mine has been driven to downloading cracked versions of games, just because the DRM on the legitimate versions is so intrusive.
In the beginning, virtually all downloadable music was DRM-mangled. It failed to prevent the same music being made available illegally, without DRM, and the restrictions on what it allowed customers to do with content they'd purchased were unpopular. Now, almost all downloadable music is available without DRM, and I haven't noticed the collapse of Warner and Sony's music divisions.
Currently, almost all eBooks are also DRM-mangled. However, some brave publishers are bucking the trend. All O'Reilly's
and Tor Books'
titles are available without DRM - and again, it doesn't seem to hurt their business
. In fact, Tim O'Reilly's position is that obscurity is a greater threat to authors than illegal copying
. Recently, evidence that this applies also to creators of movies was provided with the closure of Megaupload, which appears to have only benefitted blockbusters, but harmed the box-office returns of the majority of movies
If you make it easy for people to pay you for goods and services, they will tend to do so. If you make it hard, they will find ways around any copy protection you choose to apply. And the W3C should not be legitimising such restrictive technologies.