Group: Defective by Design/Frequently Asked Questions

Doesn't DRM protect creators?

DRM is not about protecting against copyright infringement. The clearest point that illustrates this is that people who share files do not do so through DRM-encumbered services, they go to darknets, torrents, or their friends. The files that are shared this way have no restrictions on personal use. The user can do whatever they want with their files, at any time, on any of their devices, etc. Users who get their media through DRM-encumbered services on the other hand, are entirely limited from legal uses of their media: when, where, on which devices, operating systems, etc. they can use it.

Isn't DRM ineffective anyway?

The argument that DRM "doesn't work" because people still find ways to share media is moot because that isn't what DRM is for. DRM is about controlling what legal downloaders can do with their files, and has no impact on those who acquire their files outside of DRM schemes.

What DRM is very successful at is limiting the freedom of anyone who uses DRM-encumbered services, so that the company behind said service can sell any and all (previously disabled) functionality back to them. Because copyright already provides leverage against illegal distribution, this means that the largest distribution platforms must already adhere to the demands of publishers, studios, labels, and software companies. This demand is often DRM, which allows them to sell intentionally limited services and maintain their current monopolistic (or oligopolistic) positions in the market. This is bad for independent publishers, studios, and labels, as well as all media participants. This is not about fair compensation, it's about digitally enforced exploitation.

Why is DRM bad for free software users?

Incompatibility,

Is watermarking DRM?

No [expand]