[jforberg]

> "Virtually all Server OSs get hacked/have had security bugs. Nobody should use them to host or store anything."

Your comparison is flawed. Most server installations are not broken into during their lifetime. But it only takes one copy of a movie getting onto thepiratebay to make it accessible to everyone who wants it. So if DRM cannot prevent every attempt at circumvention, it's useless and can only serve to hinder legitimate use of the product.

> If we accept your premise that DRM == disrespecting customers, then you'll have to account for why people are still selling stuff with DRM, and continuing to make millions and millions of dollars.

No, I don't. The fact that some people accept the deal doesn't prove that there's nothing wrong with it. In this case, the seller unilaterally went back on the deal without the customers being involved at all.

I'm not a DRM fanatic and I do use DRM services on a daily basis. But if a vendor pulls a trick like in the OP, they can't then turn around and ask why some potential customers are pirating the product instead. Their addition of DRM has made the service less convenient than piracy. Remember, it's only your legitimate paying customers who have to deal with your DRM. The pirated version has no DRM.

> The success of DRM'd products refutes your claim, entirely.

The purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy. This has mostly been a failure.

[la_barba]

>But it only takes one copy of a movie getting onto thepiratebay to make it accessible to everyone who wants it.

Unlocking the DRM on that one movie allows you to pirate that one movie, not all movies. Finding a security bug for one OS allows you to exploit that particular OS.

>So if DRM cannot prevent every attempt at circumvention, it's useless and can only serve to hinder legitimate use of the product.

No, if something even serves as a mild hurdle, it is still beneficial.

>So if DRM cannot prevent every attempt at circumvention, it's useless and can only serve to hinder legitimate use of the product.

https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

Given the abundance of hundreds, and in some cases thousands of vulnerabilities, it seems securing any OS is an impossible task. To take smartphones phones as an example, a vast vast majority of phones have had vulnerabilities which let you root/jailbreak them.

>No, I don't. The fact that some people accept the deal doesn't prove that there's nothing wrong with it. In this case, the seller unilaterally went back on the deal without the customers being involved at all.

You do, because I don't accept the argument you made. Your broad claim that DRM == disrespecting consumers doesn't seem to be borne out by the market. So it seems we've reached a bit of an impasse.

>The purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy. This has mostly been a failure.

You have to actually demonstrate that it is a failure. Whats plain to see for anyone is that products like adobe photoshop for e.g. are going from 'little league' DRM to 'major league' DRM + subscription and are making even more money. Its fine to lament at how the world sucks, but its important to be realistic and fact based when doing so.

[ric2b]

> Your broad claim that DRM == disrespecting consumers doesn't seem to be borne out by the market. So it seems we've reached a bit of an impasse.

So Comcast customers feel respected? Feeling respected isn't the only variable at play.