DRM isn't here for ("against") the consumer; it's done to control the media playback device vendors (screens, tivos, ...). There's a great essay on this which I

DRM isn't here for ("against") the consumer; it's done to control the media playback device vendors (screens, tivos, ...). There's a great essay on this which I can't find right now but it comes down to: even with flawed drm, content providers have control over the media devices market. Planned obsolence of playback media, etc etc. Once you look at drm from this perspective, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. A good counter example to the incompetence-over-malice rule of thumb. Edit: this, btw, is also why you can't meaningfully "opt out" of DRM. It isn't about you. (Edit 2: I now realise that without proof this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and being plausible just makes it more susceptible to confirmation bias.. if someone has the actual essay that might shed some light on this :p )