It's like as if smokers would complain that cigarets industry ruins public health.
I'm not sure why it's insincere. I keep buying ThinkPads, but I hate the new designs with a passion. (And they hate me; they literally cause me RSI where the earlier ones didn't.) It doesn't make my arguments against the new ThinkPads any weaker.
So, we can have digital goods sold without DRM, so we could enjoy them without police state methods attached.
> I'm not sure why it's insincere.
Because by buying from those who push DRM on them, users support and prolong the usage of the said DRM. Complaints won't persuade DRM Lysenkoists. Loss of profits can.
confusing Spotify with amazon or apple DRM would only display lack of understanding on part of the consumer. The truth is for streaming services you are NOT buying music!!!
1. Renting does not make sense for digital goods (I already explained in the past why).
2. DRM doesn't protect anything. I.e. it can't enforce the renting paradigm. This very article demonstrates that DRM is broken and it can't stop piracy. Therefore there is no need to use it ever even if we assume that it's an ethical practice (it is not). All DRM does is punishing paying customers by crippling the usability of the product (limiting supported devices / platforms / players / formats and so on), while having zero effect on pirates who pirate the same stuff DRM free.