DRM is Prohibition

An interesting debate between two realisms was kicked off with Cory Doctorow's take on Microsoft's Digital Rights Management (DRM). 

It's a weird kind of Big Lie strategy by the DRM people to talk about how DRM can prevent "piracy" when there has never, ever been an example of this happening.

He also criticised Wired Magazine for not being critical in their reviews of devices with DRM.  In response, Editor Chris Anderson offers his take on DRM:

This is just being realistic: much as we might want it to be otherwise, content owners still call most of the shots. If a little protection allows them to throw their weight behind a lot of progress towards realizing the potential of digital media, consumers will see a net benefit.

Cory Doctorow then makes a compelling argument on all DRM fronts (go read it, he sees a net loss), but especially on how effective DRM is in practice to prevent piracy:

DRM is not protection. There has never been a DRM-covered file that was kept off the Internet. Ever. ... DRM isn't protection from piracy. DRM is protection from competition.

Jon Lebkowsky summarizes that DRM breaks your technology and limits your access to content that you paid for, requiring you to pay more.  As all goods turn into services, the rights for more than digital content face redefinition, sometimes transparently, sometimes not.

Meanwhile, over on Zack Lynch's Brainwaves is a banned book review by David Knott of Reason.org:

Shulgin eloquently argues for individual liberty while debunking many myths that prop up the failed prohibitionist drug policies in this country. Prohibitions -- whether of drugs or books like PIHKAL -- predictably fail. In this era of de facto censorship, when people do not discuss drug use openly for fear of incarceration, it is deeply refreshing to hear someone reprise with truth.

DRM is Prohibition, not Protection -- an ineffective yet lucrative assault on your liberties (fair use).