You could have an "open source" implementation. But you couldn't have an effective free software implementation, because it wouldn't be possible for it to be an effective DRM measure. If you have free software DRM, what stops a user from removing the DRM components (hint: nothing)?
Steam solved the DRM issue eons ago: become the best place to get something, and people will flock to you to get it.
(Steam itself is also DRM, but AFAIK easily broken so more perfunctory).
It would be nice if the pricing of Steam was adapted to the economic conditions of the country - but that then has problems of rich country users would probably find proxies in poor countries.
Its just not fair for someone making/having enough cash to buy Steam games with pocket change, while another large group of people have to plan and save for months to get same access, of course they will find other methods.
It's my understanding Steam has been cracking down on this, probably exactly for the reasons you describe.
This is a thing. Steam games have different prices in different countries, and there is some amount of region locking going on. On websites selling steam keys you will often find Russian keys that can only be used through a proxy.
I think the bigger thing causing piracy is inequality in the same country. Steam sales are a good measure by giving patient people significant discounts, but apparently that's not enough to completely eradicate piracy.
(Steam also gains a lot of goodwill from discounts, which media companies are strangely unwilling to do)
I'm very anti-DRM. My point to GP was that there's no point wishing for a free software DRM implementation -- because there's no way the people orchestrating the DRM conspiracy would allow for someone to remove their precious cashcow^Wdigital restrictions.
> As long as human beings have access to the data that they are (legally) allowed to have access to, unencrypted data will exist and will be pirated.
Yes, this is true. But I really wish we would solve the actual problem: corporations thinking that DRM is actually a benefit to anyone.
> Steam solved the DRM issue eons ago: become the best place to get something, and people will flock to you to get it.
Steam has DRM (the games are tied to Steam IIRC so if your account ever gets deleted you're fucked), so I don't know what you mean by "solved the DRM issue".
I pointed out the same thing elsewhere in this thread. Steam didn't solve the DRM issue (it still has it) and it didn't solve the "piracy" issue (you can still pirate Steam games by ripping their DRM).
It solved the "lost sales" issue, by making it so extremely convenient to buy games legally that anyone who can afford to just isn't going to bother pirating stuff.
I think inertia and convenience. Casual users won't hack around trying to rip Netflix when they have already paid for it. Also since services like Netflix are in the cloud they allow for viewing from multiple devices and other benefits (remembering where you left off, etc).
Sure, there might be some savvy developers out there that might put out a custom build of Chromium with a stream ripper plugin. But that still means that some users have to pay for content.
I'm talking about a free software DRM implementation -- where users have been explicitly given the freedom to remove the DRM. Sure, not everyone will modify their copy of Chromium but once a single developer does and creates a fork of it, that's all you need (and that's why freedoms #2 and #3 are so important).
The reason I pointed that out is because wishing for a "free software DRM implementation" is a bit silly, because having a free software implementation contradicts the whole purpose of DRM (which is why we should reject DRM as a concept, not barter with DRM proponents about what the licensing of the DRM binary blobs should be).