I usually explain it to non technical people some kind like this:
Opposition to DRM can have two aspects, which are good to differentiate to understand the issue.
First reason is ethical. DRM as preemptive policing is insulting in treating all users as potential criminals by default. Its overreaching nature is unethical and as such should be opposed the same way you'd oppose something like police state approach to society.
Second reason is pragmatical. DRM always cripples digital products by reducing usability (To put it differently - DRM always gets in the way of the legitimate user).
There is also another set of reasons which are kind of in between the two above - security and privacy. DRM always can be viewed as security and privacy threat, because the very premise behind the DRM is not trusting the user, assuming all users are potential criminals. As such, DRM usually intends to monitor and limit users' activity, like any policing does, except that DRM does it in user's private digital space, on their hardware, in their systems and programs they run and etc. Since trust should be symmetrical, users should not trust any DRM and should view it as a security and privacy threat, especially since DRM implementation is usually some black box code and you have no clue what it can do. So viewing any DRM as potential malware is a good symmetrical approach to it treating all users as potential criminals (infringers).
I'd say out of these, ethical and security / privacy reasons are most important, while the issue of convenience is less so. However most people concentrate on the later and even came up with a term "DRM that doesn't get in your way". That's simply incorrect - DRM always reduces usability by limiting what you can do with digital product. That's one of the main points in it.
So DRM always gets in your way. Some DRM can be less apparent though, while another can be very much in the face. I'd say actually the first one is even worse (not like some would assume that DRM that doesn't bother their comfort can be acceptable). The reason is simple - if it's hidden and not apparent it must be even more sinister than one that's very obviously deterring your experience. It's like a hidden camera vs an open one. Hidden / "unobtrusive" DRM is worse because you don't pay attention to it and get comfortable with using it.
Yes, that's implied. But you add a good point - DRM doesn't even stop piracy and as such the official reason it's usually justified with is completely invalid. This only strengthens the expectation that DRM is used for completely different purposes, so it makes it more obvious that it should be opposed and never trusted.
Yeah, I just felt like making it explicit. Try finding a Hollywood blockbuster that isn't trivially available on the pirate bay - but they still encrypt and region-lock the DVDs anyway. If they keep a movie from being leaked onto the internet before it launches in theaters, that's a big win for them.
I updated the phrase. That's a good point to direct to publishers who aren't crooked but are mistakenly trapped in this DRM mentality. Such ones can be convinced.
For example GOG is successful in negotiating with various gaming publishers about releasing even recent games DRM-free. Negotiating with crooks who use DRM for side reasons can't be productive, but negotiating with those who use DRM out of habit or notion that "it's a standard in the industry" is possible. According to GOG, they had many meetings with representatives from various companies and they asked for graphs, charts and other information about how GOG operate and how successful is their DRM-free approach. Sometimes that results in DRM-free releases. And the more they do it, the easier is for them to demonstrate that.
Unfortunately video industry lacks any serious distributor who would want to do such kind of work. Netflix and Co. are too comfortable obliging the DRM insanity.
Opposition to DRM can have two aspects, which are good to differentiate to understand the issue.
First reason is ethical. DRM as preemptive policing is insulting in treating all users as potential criminals by default. Its overreaching nature is unethical and as such should be opposed the same way you'd oppose something like police state approach to society.
Second reason is pragmatical. DRM always cripples digital products by reducing usability (To put it differently - DRM always gets in the way of the legitimate user).
There is also another set of reasons which are kind of in between the two above - security and privacy. DRM always can be viewed as security and privacy threat, because the very premise behind the DRM is not trusting the user, assuming all users are potential criminals. As such, DRM usually intends to monitor and limit users' activity, like any policing does, except that DRM does it in user's private digital space, on their hardware, in their systems and programs they run and etc. Since trust should be symmetrical, users should not trust any DRM and should view it as a security and privacy threat, especially since DRM implementation is usually some black box code and you have no clue what it can do. So viewing any DRM as potential malware is a good symmetrical approach to it treating all users as potential criminals (infringers).
I'd say out of these, ethical and security / privacy reasons are most important, while the issue of convenience is less so. However most people concentrate on the later and even came up with a term "DRM that doesn't get in your way". That's simply incorrect - DRM always reduces usability by limiting what you can do with digital product. That's one of the main points in it.
So DRM always gets in your way. Some DRM can be less apparent though, while another can be very much in the face. I'd say actually the first one is even worse (not like some would assume that DRM that doesn't bother their comfort can be acceptable). The reason is simple - if it's hidden and not apparent it must be even more sinister than one that's very obviously deterring your experience. It's like a hidden camera vs an open one. Hidden / "unobtrusive" DRM is worse because you don't pay attention to it and get comfortable with using it.