Two blogs I read daily broached my favorite subject (DRM) in the last week. Jay Savage asks "people who don’t like DRM [to] stop buying music with a DRM implementation"..."a purchase of DRM [content] is a vote for DRM content.". I agree with him. As he points out, we are being trained as consumers to accept DRM. So as we become trained, most (all) professional content will eventually be published with a DRM mechanism.

On the othersideChris Anderson, who granted knows way more than I do, continues to sit on the fence, but I think Jay's post implies that sitting on the fence is not an option. For professional content DRM will be an all or nothing game.

Chris Anderson's believes (probably accurately) that DRM encourages publishers, consumer electronics makers and retailers to release more, better and cheaper digital media and devices. I, however, do not believe that DRM is necessary to achieve those reuslts. DRM is strictly a form of distribution control. Nothing more. It simply does not stop illegal copying. The reason publishers embrace DRM is because they are in the business of distribution - plain and simple. Creators do not need it, and for the most part I believe Chris contradicts himself on this issue.

In my opinion since DRM looks to control distribution, it is not in the best interest of artists/creators who must negotiate to be part of that distribution network. And as Jay points out it will be an all or nothing game. Sitting on the fence on this issue is not an option. At what point is standard copyright notices no longer sufficient and DRM restrictions justified?