The one example I have ever seen is Denuvo DRM for PC games, in certain games for (very) limited times.
Denuvo has gained widespread adoption among AAA game publishers because it tends to hold for the critical period when a game first goes on sale. The DRM is typically broken within weeks but that is good enough for the publisher, as the release period has generally passed by that point. They made their sales.
I think we should distinguish interactive things like games from the sort of title that's copyable via the 'analog hole' -- for movies/songs/books, effective DRM is incompatible with human liberty, but I don't have that problem with DRMed games.
(This isn't to argue in favor of DRM on the web. It ought to stay in its restricted-device ghetto.)
From a sales standpoint, I don't see the distinction. If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze, and the content producers feel they've made their money before it gets broken, then they'll certainly feel that it's been a value-add for their business.
If web-based DRM actually does remove the browser as an attack vector entirely, and the majority of copyright infringement occurs in other places (studio leaks, etc.), then the content producers might see that as acceptable.
Regardless of all that, I think the distinction is more a philosophical one: you seem to believe that the creative output involved in a game is more reasonable to protect than the creative output involved in a movie, just because of the method of consumption. I think the "human liberty" aspect is a bit much, as well: why do you think you're entitled to the content (on "your terms") that someone else has labored to create?
We can certainly argue (and probably agree) that things like copyright terms are effectively unlimited and that's wrong, and even if they were limited, DRM doesn't give you the ability to get at the content DRM-free after copyright has expired. But I don't see it as unreasonable that a content producer should be able to use technical means to protect their content for a period of time after initial distribution. I think the current implementations of DRM leave a ton to be desired, but I think the concept is sound.
I think overall, though, it's a matter of market forces. People consume "pirated" content because either they can't get the content and consume it in a manner that they want to (and feel strongly enough about that to not settle for the "approved" channel), or people pirate things because they believe the price is too high for a legit copy (and then there are those who just won't pay anything at all, no matter what the price). DRM for music purchases has been largely dropped because people are happy enough with the distribution channels and price that they usually don't look for pirated copies, at least not to the extent that makes the content producers nervous. Will we eventually get to the same place with video? I don't know.
> If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze
What you're missing is that this delay is fundamentally impossible. The day a movie is available, it will be ripped, no matter how good the DRM is.
Game DRM can hold people off, because the game actually has to run once pirated. Game DRM has to be broken. Movie/audio DRM doesn't have to be broken; it can be ignored entirely by pirates.
The distinction I'm drawing is that to consume a movie (etc.) you need the images to make it into your brain; OTOH a game can be played without its code ever leaving the device. To effectively stop people from saving the images means stopping freedom of thought; that's different from "I'll rent you this program only on this closed tamper-resistant platform" which doesn't claim a right to control what happens in your own brain. Maybe it's clearer if you think of a cochlear implant -- should it be against the law for me to run my own software on my own cochlear implant? Fuck no. Likewise for future cognitive prostheses. So DRM can't be more than a tiny speedbump to a person wanting to copy a movie, in a free society; but it might still work for things like games, if sellers can keep convincing people to accept good-enough DRM platforms.
When it comes to suing someone for distributing a work they copied, like you I don't see a difference between a game and a movie.
No, but maybe we need to look at it from relative numbers.
Example: DRM music hasn't stopped music piracy, but better models for the content distribution (i.e. DRM music platforms like spotify, etc.) have demotivated more people from bothering to pirate music.
The fact that spotify has DRM is inconsequential to it, and those like it stomping out a ton of music piracy. It's all about the distribution model, and the DRM is just to make the rights holders happy.
A big problem with piracy is that piracy tech hasn't advanced in 2 decades, whereas the rest of the world has moved on. There are two major challenges. Due to DMCA, anonymity is a major obstacle for which there isn't a good solution yet. TOR, vpns etc. aren't well suited for content distribution. Second, the bittorrent model itself doesn't work very well for streaming.
"Second, the bittorrent model itself doesn't work very well for streaming."
Wrong. It works incredibly well. That's why the anti-piracy companies are all up in arms over things like PopcornTime. All you need are a couple of other people to download from. Hell, there's whole pieces of software whose whole purpose it is to stream torrents and they do it extremely well. Nothing even compares to the video quality, which is the same as if you downloaded the file ahead of time.
"TOR, vpns etc. aren't well suited for content distribution."
WTF does this mean? You can't distribute content over Tor or VPNs? I only do it every single fucking day without any problems and with ease.
"Due to DMCA, anonymity is a major obstacle for which there isn't a good solution yet."
The DMCA created anonymity? Whatever, I'm not even going to try to understand this one.
>The DMCA created anonymity? Whatever, I'm not even going to try to understand this one
Not sure if you are trying to be intentionally dense. Have you heard of DMCA notices ? You get them if your IP is in the swarm, and are uploading copyrighted content. Hence the need for anonymity.
>WTF does this mean? You can't distribute content over Tor or VPNs?
Again, you seem to like being thick for no reason. You can distribute content over every medium imaginable. That doesn't make it the best or an efficient medium.
>Wrong. It works incredibly well.
You can't have adaptive streaming bitrates. The tracker model still relies on a central tracker. Magnet links solve some of those issues, but not everything. There are still some things that are, or would be better off, being centralised. There are several limitations that we don't need to go into length, but it's a far cry from incredible.
Other software with dongle-based protection has been pirated in the past. There will almost certainly be ways of circumventing this protection if software crackers want to do it.
I can't fathom a reason why "software crackers" don't want to do Cubase and/or Reason though.
The thing is, those "dongle-based protection" have been pirated in the past only in the rare cases where an issue was found in the dongle scheme or keys where leaked, etc. And those don't happen frequently -- whereas any old school copy protection method was broken a few days/weeks at most post release (sometimes even before release, from the demo/alpha versions).
Hasn't happened in 5-10 years for lots of physical key based products, so even if possible again, it's of theoritical and not practical value (we ain't seeing them anytime soon).
