Sigh, ok Max i will take the bait and play for a bit.

There are a few contradictions in your last statement generally within the same paragraph as the statement was made.

You're trolling and making things up again about me suggesting DAZ shouldn't go ahead with DRM. The only thing I've said is that DRM has failed because it's been reverse engineered.

Here you suggest you have no issue with DS encryption for files or DRM if you prefer. Then go on with

And as long as there are those who are willing to crack DRM it will remain unfit for purpose.

Closing the paragraph with a statement that it is unfit for purpose. It seems suggesting it is unfit for purpose and "failed" would be directly opposed to you having no problem with it.

You know this but still troll this debate with your one sided opinion

Wouldn't generally a debate consist of two parties with one sided opinions debating about the merits of there own viewpoint. So stating that someone who is involved in a debate has a one side viewpoint would pretty much describe someone who is involved in a debate.

Why make laws if people will only break them? How effective is a law if it is broken?

DRM isn't a law!!

This one was just plain evasion, im well aware DRM Isnt a law nor was that my point, which im pretty sure your well aware.

**_Wrong! I'm all for it, if it worked that is, and you're trolling again because you've clearly lost the debate.

Again this is a blatantly contradictory statement, i stated you appear to be against drm. You then proclaimed that statement as wrong! your all for it. Then added the contradictory statement "if it worked that is" imferring your not for it because you do not believe it works.

I edited out most of the name calling and overt flame baiting from your statement and just addressed your responses but i needed to leave some in as they formed part of the base statement.