DRM is a fantasy that uninformed media executives cling onto with a dream that it will put the genie back in the bottle. It's sad to see this stuff but totally understandable considering the divide between the technology people who understand the reality and the people in charge of dreaming of a fantasy that gets them back to the '80s..
Yes I know.. I was an executive as a major record label, trust me it's hard to be on both sides of this argument and it's not as simple as everyone makes it out to be...
I can't explain how many times I tried to help executives understand that the path between the media to the human eye or ear was vulnerable to so many attacks it clearly was a fruitless goal to protect media in that way. They hear some bright young person tell them they can protect their media like it was in the good 'ole days and they have the need to believe because without that belief they are out of a job..
And artists are on their own to figure out how to make money on their work...
It really is that simple, though. Arrested Development was ripped from Netflix immediately after availability. There's nothing complicated about showing that it does not work.
There would be zero impact if Netflix didn't have DRM. People would still have to search and install third party software to download streams. At that point, it doesn't matter if it comes from Netflix or from some random torrent.
Most artist, according to my understanding, have never really made money on record sales even before the advent of Napster (for example, google "The Problem with Music" by Steve Albini). Most musicians are going to make money off of concerts tickets and T-Shirts, etc sold at concerts.
It won't stop it altogether, but it will make more people pay for convenience. Plucking numbers from the air, if only 30% of viewers pay for content and this DRM only increases it to 35%, it's still a (commercial) win despite not being a total lock. On these (purely conjectural) numbers, that's a 16% increase in revenue.
Cut out the middle men, rely on donations. Or still sell your stuff for a price, those who want it for free can reach for the Pirate Bay anyway —it's about the same. You won't be rich, but you may live off your craft.
---
Other schemes such as global licence may also help.
We also need easy, anonymous micro payment. Like, click a button to give 10 to 50 cents every time you feel like it when using something (song, e-book, software…).
Oh, and, like, universal basic income. It's hard to get paid when we contribute to the commons, so basic income can help a great deal. (Seriously, if we had sustainable basic income —dunno if it's possible right now— we could probably abolish copyright and patent laws right away —and not worry about the massive lawyer lay-offs that will ensue.)
Check out Bandcamp. I'm a follower of a number of "post-rock" review accounts on Facebook and occasionally check 4chan for news of interesting releases. I actually buy 2-5 albums a month; often very good ones too.
Not having to hire Alicia Silverman or whomever the cute-blonde-equivalent-in-2014 is for video clips does cut costs.
if you buy a CD from a artists that is on a major label how much do you think the artist gets?
If he wrote the music/lyrics and produced it he will maybe get 2 $ if your not a big star you will get 1 $ or less!
Yes I know.. I was an executive as a major record label, trust me it's hard to be on both sides of this argument and it's not as simple as everyone makes it out to be...
I can't explain how many times I tried to help executives understand that the path between the media to the human eye or ear was vulnerable to so many attacks it clearly was a fruitless goal to protect media in that way. They hear some bright young person tell them they can protect their media like it was in the good 'ole days and they have the need to believe because without that belief they are out of a job..
And artists are on their own to figure out how to make money on their work...