Recently Ubisoft, a video game company, had made a new type of DRM, digital rights management, to protect it's new video games.
The idea is that these protections can curb piracy as only customers will be able to play these games on their machines.
Despite efforts to have a new and harder to break system, all the new changes were broken in just one day.
Does it makes sense to consumers to have DRM on their materials when they clearly do not work? For a consumer there is significant cost associated with DRM.
There are millions of dollars spent in labor and research to have protective measures put on the digital media.
Every game that is made is at a much higher cost because the customer is the one who has to pay for the millions spent on this type of protection technology.
If it's broken in one day, this extra money spent is pointless.
The customer is paying for something that clearly does not work making the cost of every game purchased artificially higher than need be.
There is also a pointlessness to having poor quality DRM.
The reason is because if it's easy to break in just one day this means that it's easy to be pirated in just one day.
Whoever breaks the encryption could then technically pirate the software and share it with others.
Once there is one pirated copy then the protection that is there on the game doesn't do anything.
Those who are going to steal the game are going to play the pirated copy while those who are going to be ethical and make the purchase are playing the DRM protected version.
If this type of DRM was made in a way that actually worked then there might be some justification for it to prevent piracy as a company does want to protect their hard work.
But if it can't be done, it's senseless to charge customers extra for something that does not have any real results.