3 ms·
There's a couple of problems with this analysis. 1) it only considers two of the three main actors in the DRM sphere - content "providers", by which the author
by r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
There's a couple of problems with this analysis.
1) it only considers two of the three main actors in the DRM sphere - content "providers", by which the author seems to mean content distributors, and manufacturers of playback devices. It completely ignores why content creators, the people who actually make stuff, might want to use DRM. Yes sometimes these are the same entities as the content distributors. But not always.
2) it ascribes intent(purpose) to actors without examining what those actors say about their intent. The closest it gets is criticising the arguments of fellow opponents of DRM. This isn't even strawmanning. If you want to understand the purpose behind your opponent's acts its generally a good idea to look at the arguments of said opponents rather than the arguments of your allies.
Ignoring 2, let's look at why content creators might want to use DRM, knowing that it can eventually be circumvented. If you're a content creator then delaying pirates by just a week or two can have a massive effect on your revenue. For example on steam roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of a games revenue for the first year will be earned in the first week[1].
The movie business and book publishing is similarly skewed to opening weekends. While sleeper hits and cult classics do exist they are the exception, not the rule.
So from a content creator's (mine) point of view, the purpose of DRM is to delay pirates long enough to earn that crucial opening weekend or weeks revenue, and this continue eating. Creators know that pirates will likely crack the DRM at some point, and its not unusual to remove it after a time, since by that point it no longer matters.
I frankly don't care a jot about some imagined power struggle between distributors and manufacturers. What I care about is being able to make a living.
I know there will always be parasites who want everything for free despite being able to pay, and people who genuinely can't afford to pay for content (fair enough, but do you actually need a copy of generic superhero movie pt. XII to live a fulfilling life. No), and I accept that. But I don't have to make life easy for them.
[1]https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/steam-the-state-of-long-tail-revenue https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/steam-the-state-of-long...
- Beldin 5y agoYour argument (the purpose of DRM is to delay pirates long enough to earn that crucial opening weekend or weeks revenue) is based on a few assumptions. A big one is that unlicensed downloading of creative works will meaningfully affect opening weekend revenue. I could go along with that argument for movies that have been available for weeks on download sites. But I don't see how DRM would prevent a film from leaking way before its release date. If that happens, I'd venture you have a different problem. For creative works with a longer "main revenue" window that are consumed on a computer (i.e. games), I can go along with this reasoning for top-priced titles. For games that are $15 on steam, dunno. Doesn't seem worth the effort to deprive the creator of some revenue, just to save 15 bucks. But what do I know, I don't make & sell games. E-books seem different yet again - but again, I don't write and sell ebooks. Except for a handful of well-known titles or titles receiving universal praise and prize considerations, I'd guess you'd be lucky to be noticed in the book market. I have no clue whether more popularity will drive sales more than downloads will cut into sales.