> DRM is, IMO, and industrial policy […] Negotiating the leverage party type X has over Y is always a key feature of such policies. I like this take from a hig

> DRM is, IMO, and industrial policy […] Negotiating the leverage party type X has over Y is always a key feature of such policies. I like this take from a high level because it’s true. But, DRM is also an industrial technical attempt to enforce copyrights, not primarily against an industrial party, but primarily against consumers. Copyright law itself is a ‘rights management’ system, it just isn’t targeted at digital assets, and the truth is that copyright law doesn’t come with built-in or automatic enforcement, and a large number of consumers and businesses are perfectly content to ignore the law and consume/copy/distribute without permission or payment. Let’s momentarily ignore the fact that a: many DRM implementations overstep copyright and prevent some kinds of consumption that are legal under copyright law, and b: many DRM implementations are technically bad and make some kinds of legal and legitimate consumption difficult, annoying or inconvenient. It doesn’t seem like the author’s claim is correct or justified that DRM gives content creators leverage over playback device manufacturers. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like the claim is backwards and inside-out. DRM is a symptom of the existing leverage, it isn’t the cause. DVD player makers reluctantly put DRM in because they’ve been asked/forced to, because the MPAA and licensing groups already have leverage, not because DRM itself is bestowing more leverage. The very control and leverage that content makers want over playback manufacturers is the ability to force them to implement DRM!