For instance:
- Casting annual subscriptions to Amazon Prime as nefarious. I’m happy enough with my prime subscription. I have enough agency to make other decisions. I don’t need to be rescued.
- The idiotic argument that , because pirates can and do remove DRM, therefore DRM is solely used to restrict authorized use. Seriously? Can anyone read this with a straight face? It’s like saying that because burglars can bypass door locks, the only possible purpose for locks is to keep people out of their own houses. I’m a DRM skeptic, but this flimsy position makes me less sympathetic to the anti-DRM camp.
But yeah, generally I think this article isn't the best on the subject. Just hadn't been posted on this site, so I thought it would be good to discuss.
DRM, like my front door lock, serves the purpose of deterring casual theft, not of eliminating all possibility of theft.
There are better ways to do that than DRM, and DRM is more of a pain and risk to legitimate owners than door locks are. But the over-zealousness of anti-DRM crusaders leads them to extend their arguments to ridiculous extremes. That's what bothers me: if DRM does more harm than good (as I believe), why use laughably false and disingenuous arguments to make the case?
