On the other hand, I remember reading someone who said that one property of brilliant ideas is that when other people hear them, they think "well I could have thought of that."
Unfortunately that's just another way of saying "what people want". Even more than just want, because it's not like world peace, where people want it, they just don't want to pay for it. This, they're looking to pay for (perhaps not the product itself, but the other qualities of the product that get made in order to promote their DRMed format they certainly want, and authors want the DRM. Yes, authors. Not just publishers)
But people want to pay for these products that only get made if DRM protections are made for them.
And I wonder if you can kill one without the other.
But on the whole I think markets do a great job and, more importantly, I don't know of a better mechanism.
The important thing is, this mechanism does not exist in vacuum. It doesn't really distinguish between sources of "wants", i.e. whether a consumer wants something because that is their genuine need, or because it's a manufactured marketing-based need, or whether they're forced by circumstances into choosing this particular product (e.g. lack of choice).
I think we should both appreciate the effectiveness of this system and also talk about its failure modes when employed in the wider context of human society.
This reeks of paternalism and fascism. You claim you know what people actually want despite their own claims to the contrary?
So what, you'll tell people when they "don't really want" what they say they want?
We could just stop believing that « capitalism is just another way of saying "what people want" ».
I don't think it's "paternalistic" to recognize the power imbalance present here. I think it's stupid not to.
Imagine there is a human desire X in some people, and there are three products A, B and C designed to fulfill that desire. Do you honestly think the marketing industry is stupid enough to primarily be engaged in trying to sell product B to people who DON'T have desire X? Of course not. The idea is to convince people that product B does a better job of fulfilling desire X than competing products A and C. Or at least that it optimises some other variable – it might not be universally better, but it may be a whole lot cheaper, or easier to get a hold of, or have better customer support.
Real[1] marketing is mostly concerned with finding the people who have a particular need, and making sure they are aware of a product that fulfills that need, and what the strengths of that product are.
Marketing is fundamentally about increasing sales as much as possible with as little expenses as possible. The most efficient way to do this is to find people who already would have wanted your product if only they were aware that it exists, and make them aware that it exists. Convincing people to buy things that fulfills needs they never had is possible, but takes a lot of effort. Too much to be worth it, in most cases.[2]
----
[1] This may sound like I'm moving the goalposts, but all I'm really trying to do is guard myself against the obvious "but I got this viagra marketing spam email which does not fit your description" rebuttal.
[2] Yes, there are plenty of "artificial needs" to go around, but most of them are created by culture, of which only a smaller part is marketing. They're rarely created by a single, hugely effective marketing campaign. (I say rarely, because De Beers comes to mind...)
I think you're absolutely right about "real" marketing, but I think you're giving it too much credit. "unreal" marketing is much more real.
You can surely kill DRM, and it will only improve real creativity.
> Unfortunately that's just another way of saying "what people want"
No. This is noticing that the system that provides for immediate "wants" has some relatively obvious failure modes. Failure modes, which we hit again and again.
Unfortunately that's just another way of saying "what people want".
Capitalism is like a force of nature: people get swept up in its flow and it's much easier to just go with it than to resist it. Going with the flow also has benefits for society a whole, which makes it easy to defend coasting along. It's quite comfortable for those that are successful in riding the waves and they are envied, making it harder for society as a whole to recognize and acknowledge that there are also downsides, that the current causes ruin left and right and that for a good and just world for all we should obstruct, divert and impede capitalism somewhat.
The Western European socialist democracies institute the equivalent of hydro-electric dams for capitalism to benefit those that do not manage to benefit from capitalism directly.