> I personally think it's OK to support artists by paying for movies, for example. I mean, I don't break into a cinema, I pay for a regular ticket.
I have no problem paying for movies, I just won't pay for movies that are in a DRM'd format.
However, please remember that buying a movie actually doesn't pay the artists that made the movie (they were all paid salaries while the movie was being made). There is an argument to be made for economic incentives and so on, but "why don't you want to pay artists" is a bullshit emotional play created *by the movie industry* to get people to increase their profits. And don't get me started on authors and musicians, those poor motherfuckers get shafted daily.
> It's not like they are forcing you to use it .. if you dislike DRM, just don't sign up for Spotify or Netflix. It's that simple.
Except that now that DRM is a web standard, it's going to be much easier for people to use DRM in websites (it's free and supported by browsers). If nobody complains about this issue today, then in 20 years when the vast majority of popular websites use DRM there'll be nothing we can do.
> I'd much rather trust a browsers built-in DRM than Flash.
I'd prefer if we had neither, and people just used the existing HTML5 media playback functionality present in all modern browsers. DRM doesn't work, why are we wasting our time creating systems that will get programmers jailed?
> So in the long run, built-in DRM might make browsing more secure.
TIL that downloading a binary from some random web-server and running it on your machine without any verification is "secure". Not even the very-nicely-worded working group document was that optimistic about EME.
> If people don't support artists, artists go bankrupt. I know that it is incredibly hard to pay your bills as an independent artist. So this is why I am against piracy.
I'm also against the pillaging of ships.