It's the case for some industries, but it's a fallacious example. You're citing cases where businesses have been successful, I would say, in spite of DRM, in in

It's the case for some industries, but it's a fallacious example. You're citing cases where businesses have been successful, I would say, in spite of DRM, in industries where the status quo is accepting DRM or having no content. Amazon distributes MP3s via "the open web" - sure, it's via MP3 files over HTTP, but an <audio> tag can pull that, Amazon could (and perhaps does) implement their cloud player in that manner anyway. Valve's Steam distributes a great deal of games without DRM - games are high margin products compared to music singles or DVDs, yet they seem quite successful. I try, or often only buy DRM-free games on Steam to support them. Apple's iTunes switched in the past few years to distributing music without DRM that encumbered their files and locked in consumers to their iEcosystem. Those files can be uploaded, trivially, to any file sharing network. The Gordian knot of the problem of piracy and DRM is that only one dedicated person needs to leak it, and as long as I can listen to, look at or sense content, the analog hole will exist. Content industries have tried the approach of treating all of their customers like criminals, and it's been awful for consumers and the amount of content available trivially on peer to peer networks hasn't decreased or even decelerated, as far as I can tell. This treating everyone like a criminal to prevent one dedicated attacker is insane in the colloquial sense, wherein content companies try DRM over and over again and expect different results. I say, let Hollywood and the video content industry squirm until it realizes it needs the internet more than the internet needs it.