Now we&#x27;re getting somewhere. But there are still a couple of problems.<p>The first is that controlling the market for players isn&#x27;t a legitimate purpose. You can&#x27;t go to a court or Congress and say &quot;we need DRM so we can monopolize and exercise market power in the market for DVD players and web browsers.&quot; It isn&#x27;t <i>supposed</i> to do that, even if it does. So if the studios won&#x27;t admit to that as its purpose then the people who want to get rid of DRM can easily win the argument against the lie they claim is its purpose. But if they do admit that its purpose is monopolization they also lose, because in that case it is effective but not legitimate. This is, incidentally, the reason why many suspect the reason we still have DRM has something to do with government corruption.<p>And the second problem is that controlling the market for players doesn&#x27;t actually do them any good. It is the thing that causes them harm. Making the user experience worse is how you lose customers to piracy (and legitimate competitors).<p>And it gives power to people they don&#x27;t want it to. If you buy $2000 worth of content on iTunes and the content providers demand that you re-purchase it if you switch platforms, that doesn&#x27;t get you to re-purchase it, it gets you to not switch platforms. Which gives the platform providers more leverage over the content providers, because now they have captive users. If you&#x27;re Fox or Paramount, you <i>do not</i> want your position with respect to Apple to be the one software developers have to the App Store.<p>DRM is a footgun. It&#x27;s the <i>opposite</i> of &quot;commoditize your complements.&quot; [1] We should get rid of it.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.joelonsoftware.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;StrategyLetterV.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.joelonsoftware.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;StrategyLetterV.html</a>