> The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc)
It's already trivial for regular users to download pirated data, even if only experts can get around the DRM to copy and release it[0] in the first place.
Case in point: House of Cards. Fully, freely and easily available to Joe The Pirate Next Door Schmoe, now that some nerd (TRIC? BTN? ASAP? Immerse?) has gotten around Netflix's DRM.
The DRM is just one part of a strategy to make it just sufficiently unattractive to get a pirated version. Users can be worried about being caught, about their computer getting viruses, or just be put off by ugly websites and interfaces (Joe Schmoe isn't going to use get_iplayer at the command line).
If they can make pirated versions look shady and illicit, lots of people will be willing to pay a bit for an official version of the content. Part of that is implementing enough DRM that making a copy isn't as easy as right clicking the video and clicking 'save as'.
How does one have anything to do with the other? Would there be fewer viruses (or less Hollywood propaganda about viruses) on pirate websites, or different legal risks (or propaganda about legal risks) in downloading from them if DRM didn't exist? How does it help Hollywood that you can't click "save as" on netflix.com after paying but you can still do it on any pirate website without paying?
If it's easy to pirate, then Joe Bloggs rents a movie, copies it and shares it with all his mates at work. They know him, so they trust that they're not getting viruses, and they're not worried about being caught, because they're just copying it off a USB stick. A couple of them pass it on to some other friends. Or at least, that's what the content producers think will happen.
DRM drives people to pirate websites instead of that, with the associated risks of dodgy downloads and being tracked. Additionally, the content producers can apply pressure to search engines, domain registrars and ad providers to keep the site on the back foot, so links will break. Faced with that, at least some of Joe's friends will cough up to get their movies legally. Especially now that content providers are finally starting to get the idea of providing content cheaply and conveniently.
>DRM drives people to pirate websites instead of that, with the associated risks of dodgy downloads and being tracked.
Even forgetting that the DRM is totally broken so Joe can still about as easily do the same thing by just downloading some software, it still doesn't seem like the effort is worth the candle. It isn't Joe's friends who have to go to the pirate website, it's just Joe, who can still distribute it to his friends thereafter. Or for that matter, Joe's buddy who is more savvy than Joe and so gets the movie from the pirates and checks it for viruses and gives it to fifteen Joes who each give it to fifteen work buddies.
The fact is that if people want to pirate stuff, they can. Thinking you can stop that is just a fantasy. It's more important that you not make people think you're a jerk by suing and jailing everyone and imposing DRM on them, so that they're more interested in giving you money, than it is to maybe make it ever so slightly more inconvenient for pirates. I me honestly -- the DRM creates more inconvenience for the people who are paying you than it does for the pirates. Weigh one against the other and you don't get a net increase in sales.
Still works, though development has moved on from the original guy.
Relevant bit from the new projet's website:
"DRM
get_iplayer does not circumvent any digital rights management security (see the BBC’s website on how to do that with the Windows-only DRM content they provide). get_iplayer does not circumvent any effective technological measures. The BBC does not implement any such measures. They use RTMP which is a streaming protocol now publicly published by Adobe. Sometimes they use RTMP ‘SWF verification’ which has proven to be ineffective in its current BBC implementation (flvstreamer cannot handle such verification requests so the stream is dropped and is then automatically resumed). The iPhone streams are also unprotected and use plain progressive download HTTP protocol. The WMA and realaudio streams and likewise unprotected. The BBC may at some point choose to effectively protect their streams with DRM or some ‘effective technological measure’ in which case get_iplayer will no longer be a useful tool for those streams. The BBC do implement DRM on their Adobe Air downloadable files and therefore get_iplayer is not useful with those. The BBC iPlayer TV only works in the UK so that they can limit the reach of their output to UK TV Licence fee payers who fund iPlayer (although legally you do not require a licence to watch non-live iPlayer output)."
So all the many comment in this thread about what the BBC could not do without DRM seem to be contradicted by the facts. All the BBC need is something that claims to be DRM but really isn't.
It's already trivial for regular users to download pirated data, even if only experts can get around the DRM to copy and release it[0] in the first place.
Case in point: House of Cards. Fully, freely and easily available to Joe The Pirate Next Door Schmoe, now that some nerd (TRIC? BTN? ASAP? Immerse?) has gotten around Netflix's DRM.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene#Release_procedure