Yeah, so there ain't such thing as "bad" logic, but the point stands.

Does anybody who argues that iTunes DRM "isn't so bad" even get the point? First of all, the undocumented effects of SecuRom aren't even comparable to the effects of iTunes DRM, but more importantly, MUSIC IS THE MOST PIRATED MEDIUM IN THE WORLD, so obviously, iTunes DRM has been a complete failure. There isn't a single iTunes track that I can't get for free, right now.

Yes, iTunes music does sell well, but that's not the point here. The point is that SecuRom is ineffective at preventing piracy and harms the end user (also, has a more profound experience on the user than almost any other DRM).

If something annoys your users and doesn't work, don't do it. That simple. You don't need to beat your chest and scream, Stella!, all you need is that simple rule.

If A is unpopular and is only used for B, and fails to deliver B, don't do it. QED.

Also, if you really want to compare to other media, have you ever heard of movies? Movies have copy protection as well, but that hasn't done much to prevent piracy either. If every popular movie is available online for download at Torrentz.com right now, but the movie industry is still seeing billion dollar sales, maybe there are other factors at work BESIDES copy protection?

Books have the same rules against resale or trading with a friend as well. You can often see copywrite "Not for resale" or copy of any portion statements inside books (not all books have the same rules), but teachers illegally photocopy large passages of text all the time, people trade books freely and the re-sale market for books is almost as big as the new book market itself. And yet, books sales do just fine.

Can you imagine what would happen if they tried to put some kind of copy protection in paper-copy books using some as-yet-unheard-of technology? No librarian would accept it, and yet, it would be beneficial to the big book companies. If we go to all digital books ala computerized readers, you can bet that copy protection will take over books as well.

Surely that's not a good thing?

Books are a far more reasonable comparison to games anyway because unlike music, Games you only need to experience a few times, and are likely to move more often from one place to another. Music does not contain spoilers, so multiple accounts/bookmarks aren't necessary. You can share music with unlimited people for free and the experience is the same as if you listened on your own, whereas only one or two people can play a game simultaneously, and normally only a small few can read a book at the same time, while others can only have it read to them.

I wrote a satirical post on this very subject in my first blog, and people didn't even get it, which is mostly my fault (it wasn't too well written), but shows as well that people haven't given this more obvious comparison much thought.

TV shows are another issue entirely, and show how free streaming content can work just fine without a need to control with draconian DRM tactics, or even non-draconian ones (in most cases).

Let me repeat then, for the lazy. Comparing game DRM to music DRM is a dead end. It proves the opposite of your intended point (IE: Pointing out that iTunes DRM has failed to put a crimp in piracy), and isn't even a very similar medium (unlike books, movies, TV shows etc).

Please forward this to anyone who still thinks iTunes DRM is a viable comparison. It isn't and if you were using the full extent of your critical capacities, that would be obvious to you. Maybe it is now. Maybe you're going to post something irrelevant and cliche in the comments, I don't know.

BTW, I'm on your side on this. I want to see people purchase games like Spore, rather than pirate, but the protection methods have to A. Work, and B. Not piss off customers.