You're making the argument that non-standard DRM is superior to standardized DRM because it will result in non-compatible implementations, and "flailing around". I can only assume that because of the lack of a standard and flailing around, that will lead to bad user experiences, and so the media companies will ultimately drop DRM which will lead to a better user experience? Is that the jist of your argument?

This line of reasoning requires you to view a DRM-free experience as superior to one with DRM. That's an ideological argument, not a practical one. End users don't care one way or the other, they only care if it works or not. And as has been evidenced, DRM does work and are used by massive number of people - HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Netflix. Second, it requires you to view the "bad experience with DRM" as not a problem because it leads to "better experience without DRM". There's a whole period in there where "bad experience with DRM" is what end users will be getting. The W3C's primary goal is not to drive ideology, but to improve the web experience via standards. Intentionally failing to standardize on DRM because of ideological concerns is what runs counter to their primary mission. Failing to standardize something that needs standardization because of ideology is what would transform them into a completely different organization, not ignoring consensus.

The one point you make that we can possibly agree on is that we may not need a DRM standard at all, and that several non-compatible implementations are just fine. If the existing stuff is working well enough, then I agree; but then you don't get your DRM-free experience either.

Consensus is not always possible for contentious issues. It's a nice ideal to strive for, but there are some issues where consensus cannot be practically reached. Compromise is likewise not always possible either. Those are the times when strong leadership is called for to make a decision, over the well-reasoned objections of some of the members of the body.

As this post nicely describes, DRM is already here, isn't going away, and this whole debate wasn't about whether or not we should have DRM at all. It was about whether or not to standardize something on the web, which is even more of a primary goal of the W3C than reaching consensus.

When demand exceeds supply and prices go up, that is supposed to induce more producers to enter the market (seeing the large profit available in that market) and provide more supply. Remember, low barriers to entry and all that other free market stuff? Well when there's only one act with a limited number of shows (most times just 1), that's impossible. So you have a fixed supply and if the demand isn't met by that fixed supply, that of course leads to prices going up.

As someone else mentioned below, the way some acts solve this problem is by announcing more shows after the first show is sold out, which puts more supply into the market. After all, if demand isn't exhausted with 1 show, more shows at the same venue on subsequent nights (which is quite low marginal cost relative to that first show) will lead to greater profit for the act, and lower prices for the consumers.

Before encrypted electronic communications, criminals and terrorists had to use things like in-person meetings or unsecure communications methods (like analog telephony) to communicate. These were obviously vulnerable to being listened to for a determined party, but that was simply how it was, there was no other option. Law enforcement could use various human-powered means to target specific individuals or organizations, like tapping a particular phone line and having a human listen to it when it went active, or maybe stake out a particular meeting place with some high-power microphones. For the general non-criminal population, while it was technically possible for the government to listen to everyone all the time, it was realistically impractical because of the vast amount of manpower it would require.

Today we're in the opposite situation. Law enforcement can now get ahold of all electronic communications through various taps, but if criminals and terrorists use the proper technology and best practices, it is *impossible* for law enforcement to know what is being said. (Yes, deep-cover operatives are still possible but are impractical for all but the absolute highest-priority things for reasons of time, risk, and the same old manpower problem).

I don't have a great answer. Anything is either too insecure or seems too vulnerable to corruption. The only thing I've come up with is third-party escrow of encryption keys, but who is the third party and how do we know they aren't corrupt?

Do you have data to support your claim that the advertising money is completely useless and doesn't result in increasing sales for these companies?

False.

From a study dated 2015 Feb 25:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/

"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."

"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."

From the most recent study from that Wikipedia page, dated 2015 Feb 25:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/

"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."

"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."

The Wikipedia summary of this study is horribly worded and one could easily read it as the zinc lozenge having no effect, which is exactly the opposite of the study's conclusion (that zinc does has a positive effect on cold symptoms). The study's purpose was to determine if zinc lozenges only affect/improve symptoms in the pharyngeal region (the throat) since a lozenge is dissolved in the mouth and throat, or if the zinc has an improvement effect in the nasal region as well where it is not directly dissolved. The study showed that zinc *does* improve symptoms in the nasal region. The conclusion that the Wikipedia article is summarizing was that there was no difference in the effect of the zinc treatment depending on anatomical region - the zinc lozenge improved symptoms in both the throat and the nasal region.