The really horrible truth is, DRM was probably never intended to prevent piracy. I used to think this - then you realise what DRM is actually intended to do. So long as we argue like this, we're not confronting the real motives.

There seem to be two arguments for DRM which could be considered logical from an executive's perspective (even if in my view unethical):

- Firstly, it delays the initial piracy of new releases. This is very variable and since new DRM systems aren't created as often as new films, this only seems to be successfully pulled off every now and then... but there have demonstrably been cases of it delaying piracy by a few weeks (hell, there's at least one video game which wasn't cracked for over a year). This probably feels valuable to executives who expect the bulk of returns on a film or video game to come immediately after release (especially if they have unrealistic expectations about correlations between piracy and lost sales).

- Secondly, and more significantly, it ensures that media companies can control how content is consumed, and control the devices available to consume content. If you want to make a Blu-ray player, you have to sign contracts, and those contracts can tell you what functionality to add and what not to add. "Unauthorized" players, circumvention technology will always exist for the fringes, but that's too minor to care about. What it does mean - in tandem with the anticircumvention technology ban legislation, 17 USC 1202 - is that you can't walk into a retail chain store and buy a Blu-ray player that'll happily make copies, or so on. Most likely this is what these companies really care about - ensuring they have a say on what Homer Simpson has to choose from in Best Buy.

To be clear, I unequivocally oppose DRM; but I suspect the above points are a closer approximation of the motives of the media industry in pushing it.