Comment by la_barba

>All you're saying is that DRM isn't perfect. Nothing is perfect, and it isn't exactly a revelation.

DRM and servers are fundamentally different in that securing a server is an achievable goal. There is nothing fundamental that stops you from exposing an interface without any holes in it, even if it's quite hard. DRM is the polar opposite. Where servers are physically isolated from attackers in a manner that allows for perfect security* DRM is physically colocated on the attacker's machine in a manner that explicitly denies perfect security.

Servers are also broken into fairly sporadically for short periods of time and many of them never at all. Data stolen from servers usually slowly goes stale as people change their passwords and so on. On the other side of the fence I cannot think of a DRM that wasn't compromised relatively quickly and excluding anti-cheats once DRM is compromised it stays that way forever.

You can even see the discrepancy in the availability of files. I can pirate basically any game almost immediately after launch but if I want background production files lifted from server, even for an ancient game, the Half-Life 2 beta is almost the only example. One of them is certainly more niche but not enough to explain the size of the gulf.

Both are examples of imperfect things but there's always going to be a line between "imperfect" and "too imperfect to bother with" and personally I feel DRM falls on the "too imperfect" side of that line.

* = Assuming breaking into the data center is outside of the threat model, which it usually is.

> If it were impossible to pirate Windows, would all the pirates switch to Linux or another Free OS? If the answer is No, then a non-zero number of people will go out and purchase Windows. From a sales standpoint, preventing piracy is definitely going to drive sales.

What your not counting is the number of people who would be happy to purchase it because it's more convenient but get the pirated version because it's superior, being unencumbered by DRM.

As a firefox or chrome user for instance I could pay for netflix, but the will only deliver the 720p version, why would I pay for a worse product?

> "Virtually all Server OSs get hacked/have had security bugs. Nobody should use them to host or store anything."

Your comparison is flawed. Most server installations are not broken into during their lifetime. But it only takes one copy of a movie getting onto thepiratebay to make it accessible to everyone who wants it. So if DRM cannot prevent every attempt at circumvention, it's useless and can only serve to hinder legitimate use of the product.

> If we accept your premise that DRM == disrespecting customers, then you'll have to account for why people are still selling stuff with DRM, and continuing to make millions and millions of dollars.

No, I don't. The fact that some people accept the deal doesn't prove that there's nothing wrong with it. In this case, the seller unilaterally went back on the deal without the customers being involved at all.

I'm not a DRM fanatic and I do use DRM services on a daily basis. But if a vendor pulls a trick like in the OP, they can't then turn around and ask why some potential customers are pirating the product instead. Their addition of DRM has made the service less convenient than piracy. Remember, it's only your legitimate paying customers who have to deal with your DRM. The pirated version has no DRM.

> The success of DRM'd products refutes your claim, entirely.

The purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy. This has mostly been a failure.

FYI, Bill Gates has explicitly stated he prefers pirated MS Windows use to unencumbered Linux converts:

"[A]s long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

https://web.archive.org/web/20060411095315/https://www.latim...

This is a very old debate. It was settled a long time ago. Restrictive copyright protection measures hurt sales. Because it prevents potential customers from trying your products. Anyone arguing otherwise is motivated by something other than facts, history, logic.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201616

No DRM for iTunes Store where you can buy music.

Apple Music a streaming service, and that is DRMed (I believe).

Apple music is streaming service. But the downloaded files are DRM protected. I know this tool (https://www.audfree.com/drm-audio-converter-win/) can bypass drm easily.

The whole digital music industry has left DRM behind - I buy my music losslessly and from a number of stores without any strings attached. Of course this can only apply to purchasable content - streaming service obviously need to rely on DRM.

Apple Music (the streaming service) has DRM IIRC. But iTunes used to sell DRM-laden music in the mid-2000s and about 10 years ago they stopped. You can download all of your iTunes songs as MP3s right now.

- The DRM of Netflix is irrelevant. The people who want to download the movies will do it anyway, but their number got way lower once Netflix (and probably Hulu and others like them) got a large enough catalog. People like convenience and are willing to pay for it.

- I couldn't immediately find the article where he announced that HE uploaded his books (as an experiment), but here is one of the many articles where he dismisses the issue:

https://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html