How would those who are opposed to DRM ensure that artists will get just compensation for their works if there are no mechanisms to prevent someone from simply digitally copying a work (be it music, movie or book) and giving it away to anyone who wants it?
If it were me, I would:
- Give the people who pay for a legitimate license for the work something that is of value to them, but costs you nothing.
- Don't artificially increase the cost of distributing works.
- Allow people to copy the work, and reward them for licensing it
- Ensure that nothing besides access to the file storing the content is required for enjoying the work.
- Build in some features to validate the authenticity of the work.
- Allow the user to backup just the signatures
For example, in a container format that supports separate streams and meta-data, store an x.509 certificate or PGP signature by a licensing representative of the artist of the content's digest/hash and the customer's details (e.g. name).
Have playback/display software show the content that has such a signature differently, e.g. a badge with the customer's details from the signature.
Allow a user who has copied the content from someone else to buy just a license for the content, and all you need to do is:
- Vlidate the hash of the content to ensure they have the copy you want them to have
- Issue a new cert/signature
Of course, some changes to media consumption software would be required to support this model.
I would definitely be motivated to license more of the works I have copied if it was easy, didn't require downloading new versions, and had something more attractive to me. There is currently almost nothing to distinguish works I have paid for from ones I haven't (except that I store them separately). For most users, the only distinguishing factor is that the one they haven't paid for is easier to use.