Several people have suggested that DRM software is not bad in and of itself. So long as it is used voluntarily, it is not infringing on anyone's freedom. In fact they will even agree that voluntary DRM can be a good thing; it increases people's options and can provide a mechanism where content producers can get paid. However they oppose DRM anyway, even voluntary DRM. The reason is because they see it as the first step towards mandated DRM. If DRM hardware and software are widely available, they reason, it will be that much easier to get legislation passed to make them mandatory. Most people will already have systems which comply with the laws, so there will be no great costs involved in requiring the systems. In contrast, if no one had DRM hardware and software installed, then mandating it would be politically impossible, requiring virtually every computer in use to be junked or at least to go through an expensive upgrade. The costs of such a transition would be enormous, and legislation to mandate DRM would never succeed. This argument makes superficial sense, but it ultimately contradicts itself on one major point: if DRM is so successful and widely used as would be necessary for its mandate to be low-cost, then there is no need to require it! Opponents of the legislation need only point out that consumers are voluntarily adopting the technology and that the marketplace is working to solve the problem for the record labels and other content companies. In fact, there is very little incentive to push for mandating DRM features on the part of any of the participants in the dispute: content companies or technology companies. What they really need to do is to make DRM become popular as the only way to have a variety of good, legal content be available. A substantial number of consumers will voluntarily adopt DRM if it lets them have a Napster-style system of music on demand, with wide variety and convenient downloads, as long as the songs are not too expensive. The advantages of having a legal system that is immune to the woes of the P2P world (constant shutdowns of popular systems due to lawsuits, the problem of bogus data, etc.) will amply justify a modest fee for the download. It seems clear that this is the direction the record labels want to pursue, and the only problem is that right now, if they make downloads available without DRM restrictions, they will go right into the pirate networks. With DRM they have more control over how the data is used, there will be less piracy, and therefore they can charge less per song. Legislating the DRM is of no value in this scenario, because people will still be able to use P2P and other software for piracy, whether they have software that can support DRM or not. (We will neglect the plainly absurd argument that the computational infrastructure of the entire nation will be changed so that only "authorized" or "approved" software can run.) The record labels still must pursuade people that DRM is worth having, and the way they will do so is by making their data available at a reasonable price, while continuing their technological and legal attacks on P2P networks. Legislating DRM will not substantially help with any of these subgoals. The one exception where legislation might be helpful would be for "closing the analog hole", requirements to detect watermarked data and not process it. If all systems could be designed so that they recognized watermarks in music and video and refused to play them, then that would cut down on piracy. But this is not DRM per se, it is really an orthogonal technology. One can oppose efforts to legislatively close the analog hole while still supporting voluntary use of DRM software and hardware. Ultimately, DRM must succeed as a value proposition for the end user. Legislation to require DRM-observant software and hardware in all computers will not establish this value. By itself, such legislation will not stop piracy and file sharing. The only way to stop file sharing is with massively intrusive legislation that would practically shut down the net and most businesses as well. Such a course is impossible outside of the raving fantasies of the paranoid. Given the reality of ongoing file sharing, DRM must succeed by offering good value and the guarantees of high quality that are not available in a black market. Legislation of DRM is not in the cards, and this remote, hypothetical possibility should not stop us from supporting voluntary DRM systems.