3 ms·

I see you're getting downvoted, and I honestly think you've missed the point, but at least I'll give you a quick reply. > The point I'm arguing against is "DRM

I see you're getting downvoted, and I honestly think you've missed the point, but at least I'll give you a quick reply. > The point I'm arguing against is "DRM has never improved the experience". I point to two things that exist because of DRM You point to digital media. Digital media has existed as long as digital media has existed. DRM is a much newer thing. It has done nothing to enhance digital media, except restrict its ability to be enjoyed. That some short-sighted dinosaurs insist that they must have DRM to release digital media does in no way mean DRM improves or provides the experience of digital media. It just means that some people want to reduce the experience of something which was working fine in the first place as a prerequisite to ship. That's their decision and their call to make, but they have been proven wrong about that in the past and will be proven wrong again.

freehunter 13y ago
What you say it true, but that's missing my point. Yes, I understand that DVDs and CDs and records and tapes have been around forever. But Netflix hasn't. Steam hasn't. They only became viable (in the studio's eyes) when DRM became possible. Digital distribution could have been done for a long time. It wasn't (officially) until there was some method of controlling it. That's the entirety of my point. DRM doesn't make digital media possible, it makes studios accepting of digital distribution, which is an improvement on user experience.