> The publishing industry needs to change, and it should take Steam as its example.
Err, you seem to have missed the entire point of the linked post. The linked post is noting that the publishing industry is changing, and that it is adopting Steam as a model, and the post is railing against that change. You don't own games purchased from Steam. You can't sell them, you can't will them to your offspring upon your demise, you can't loan them, you can't rent them. Indeed, a Steam purchase should be characterized as a brief, limited, rental agreement and it should be unlawful for Steam to use the word "purchase" anywhere in their descriptive text.
Perhaps my line of reasoning was too sideways to be seen clearly as a response to this post. And you also may have misinterpreted my citation of Steam.
In my view DRM exists because a dying industry is trying to hang on. Refer to the last paragraph. My argument is that DRM is wasteful, ineffective, and the result of an industry that isn't changing.
Steam is an example not because of its DRM, but because of its convenience. Steam would be even better without DRM, of course. And I think if there were a competitor to Steam that offered the same service and prices without DRM, people would choose that competitor. I state very clearly that I think DRM is caused by this kind of stagnation, where competitors that could win market share by not being dicks to their customers don't exist.
To most consumers, including me, "renting" a AAA game from steam for as long as I could conceivably want to play it is a simply fantastic. I simply don't care if I "own" it or not.
Same with the Kindle. I buy books for $9.99 that are 50 to 100% more in printed format and even more at a retail location.
So from a consumer standpoint, I get a product in a better format, I like reading books on the Kindle, I love downloading games. I get those products at less than 50%.
So if I want to share a book with someone, I can still buy it in print format. Or I simply buy it for them. Considering the goods are half priced or less, It's still a win.
Err, you seem to have missed the entire point of the linked post. The linked post is noting that the publishing industry is changing, and that it is adopting Steam as a model, and the post is railing against that change. You don't own games purchased from Steam. You can't sell them, you can't will them to your offspring upon your demise, you can't loan them, you can't rent them. Indeed, a Steam purchase should be characterized as a brief, limited, rental agreement and it should be unlawful for Steam to use the word "purchase" anywhere in their descriptive text.