I know I mock IP defenders from time to time, but I think it’s necessary to clarify my stance on DRM. As should be well known by now, IP is a false construct used by people to make the government steal from others to give to them. However, it doesn’t follow that people cannot protect their own ideas. Really, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that if IP is going to be protected, it should be protected non-violently by the creators of each idea.
By this I simply mean that creators can apply whatever software or hardware restrictions they want in order to encourage others t buy from them instead of acquiring for free or at a discount. I would imagine that DRMware would be very popular. However, only the creators would be responsible for protecting their creation. If someone hacked the protections on the product and made it freely available, then the creator would have no legal recourse.
In this way, the market can be used to determine what levels of protection are most efficient. Perfect protection is unattainable (even if it was, it would be incredibly expensive), so there is little point in going down that path. But no protection may not be most efficient either, for there will always be people that lack the ability to hack protected software. Still others would be willing to pay for the convenience of not having to hack something before using it, and so on.
At this point, it should be clear that I do not oppose protection of creative works. Rather, my opposition is to using the government to enforce monopoly rights under a philosophical charade.