My point is, that releasing for more people = more profit. And the opposite - not serving the demand = lost sales. It's pretty straightforward. DRM-free markets show there is demand. And those who refuse to release DRM-free show they don't do it not because of money, but for some side, shady reasons.
Not sure what your EMI example shows. They offered with DRM and without DRM, and then just with DRM, but it sounds like they didn't address the audience right. I.e. they should offer in all stores, not in one place exclusively.
> The easiest way to combat DRM is to start gofundme / indie gogo campaigns, where the developer gets paid upfront, and that way they don't care about DRM since they already made money.
DRM is not about money, it's about control (i.e. power). A different kind of urge some have. That's why using rational business arguments often doesn't work with such people. Control freaks don't care about lost profits, if in the end they feel "we are in charge".
> In any case, DRM is one of those things that I don't see going away.
It was broken through for music and games. Film industry is the one most plagued by it. And I agree - I see no sign of progress in it. It's too backwards thinking.
In any case, DRM is one of those things that I don't see going away. It might change its form. People have gotten used to the convenience of not owning digital goods and merely renting them, and companies have gotten used to making money off of keeping users running on their subscription treadmill.
The easiest way to combat DRM is to start gofundme / indie gogo campaigns, where the developer gets paid upfront, and that way they don't care about DRM since they already made money.