I’ll join in the the “I hope you’re trolling” chorus, but I just wanted to put this in my own words, responding to each of your “points”:

“What we all need is a compatible DRM (works on all devices) that is much harder to break than the piss poor attempts so far.”

…and straight into the deep end of stupidity, unfortunately. Please explain, first of all, why DRM is “needed”? A DRM that works on “all devices” does not work as DRM – it would need to work on legacy devices. Any DRM that does not support, say, a $20 USB MP3 keychain does not support all devices.

That is anti-consumer as it forces people to invest in new hardware, and will therefore fail. Apple’s DRM worked to an extent because they were the first successful download provider (though it only succeeded is stopping people from leaving Apple with their purchases, not in stopping piracy). With all the thousands of devices out there, from a $20,000 home streaming rig to a $20 pendrive, it’s impossible to support them all unless you use an existing standard (MP3, which is by nature DRM-free).

As for “harder to break”, you are truly missing the point. *Nothing* is impossible to break, and claiming that it is impossible will only encourage attempts to break it. Once the DRM is broken, you’re left in the same position as now – customers are penalised for having legally purchased the content (DRM, by definition, will restrict them from doing something), while the pirates have a more versatile, and therefore more valuable product. You could back this up with legal proceedings as you later suggest, but that’s fraught with a lot of problems by its nature.

“This must be backed by very strict and consistent laws across the whole world (yes Sweden & Pirate Bay!) that exact the harshest penalties possible on anyone breaking/trying to break it, anyone downloading or simply making available content and similar crimes.”

Please read something on this subject before posting again, lest you look even more foolish. First of all, why should everyone else have to conform to *your* rules? Why does the US not adopt the Russian copyright model, or the Chinese, or the Swedish, or even the Canadian model?

Following that, how would these things be detected? There have already been vast numbers of lawsuits based on faulty information, information that cannot ever be 100% infallible (IP addresses, for example) and plain lies. Why should the punishment be increased while the information for even civil lawsuits is so flimsy?

Then, we have the chilling effects of this kind of legal action. Many technologies with many legitimate uses, from BitTorrent (used widely by games such as World Of Warcraft to distribute patches with low overhead, Linux ISOs with little cost to the developer, etc) to online backup storage may not have been developed if lawsuits for illicit uses of the technology was hanging over their heads. This may have reduced piracy to some extent, but it would have had a major negative impact on many other areas. Why should the entertainment industry’s interests take precedent over everyone else’s?

“The RIAA’s current education campaign to nail anyone and everyone regardless of their personal circumstance is exactly what’s needed. This will eventually (amen!) get the message that you just *can’t* get away with it, no matter what.”

Actually, the RIAA’s “education” campaign is so full of lies, half-truths and mistakes that it’s hard for anyone even remotely knowledgable not to laugh at it. They assume that only *their* music is the music that will ever be transferred (there are millions of albums, from CC-licenced unknowns to Nine Inch Nails and other albums released by more famous artists that are PERFECTLY LEGAL to copy, with the artists’ blessing). It’s like the DARE “education” programs – and look at how well they worked! DARE has failed because it depended on giving out scaremonger, and demonstrably false, information (“smoke pot and you’ll be a crackhead!”), and the RIAA campaigns will fail in the same way.

“One fine example being the game companies in the UK nailing people for illegal downloading of games.”

Those would be the Davenport Lyons cases, would they? The ones where Atari have dumped the lawyers for using shady tactics that have netted many innocent people while doing nothing to stop piracy? The ones where Davenport Lyons are under investigation and may be liable for disbarment because they kept threatening innocent people? Really, you have to pick better examples if you’re going to try and back up your point.

“Three cheers!

Anyway, this will have the beneficial effect of:
– effectively scaring people off from doing these things, eventually. Much more so than currently
– cut off ALL supply of illegitmate content, resulting in a massive upsurge of sales for genuine content as pirates won’t have anywhere else to go for their fix. Content will finally be fully monetized
– full control of sales and distribution by Rights Holders the world over”

…and to use the Internet meme: *facepalm*. There’s plenty of evidence that people will avoid DRM where DRM-free alternatives are available. Whether this means buying from Amazon instead of a DRM-laden store, boycotting EA products or simply downloading the “pirate” copy. More DRM is not the solution – any DRM solution hurts the legitimate customer. Your totally compatible DRM system that doesn’t affect legitimate customers is a complete myth. You’d have more chance of bumping into a golden unicorn on your way to work than encountering one of these systems in your lifetime.

If these people go DRM-free, then they can compete on a level playing field with the quality, price and range of products being the deciding factor. They used to (mostly) do this, back in the days of vinyl and CDs. Oh, you could copy an album to a tape (or later a CD or MP3 player) no problem, but people still bought quality product at reasonable prices. They tried restricting the market when it went online, and they failed. Miserably. Now, they’re left with a behemoth of a retailer they cannot control (iTunes), who dominates the market and was largely created because iPod owners could not shop around thanks to DRM. What other unintended consequences have to happen before they realise it’s a bad idea?

As per the classic Wargames quote – the only way to win the game of DRM is not to play. Alter the business models to enter the 21st century, as all the independent labels and artists I buy from have done. That’s the only way to win – if they fail, it’s only because they waited a decade to start reacting to business realities.