@Razor42: As mentioned, none of your points make any logical sense.

DAZ is adding encryption after how many years? And they're doing this for no revenue and no benefit to the end user? This is what you want me to believe? It doesn't add up. And it's really painful to read through.

You've yet to indicate what metric DAZ would consider dropping DRM. You can't say what it is because there is no such metric. You try to mention some made up metrics, but none of those things matter to the decision of adding DRM in the first place if you're arguing against what I've said. DRM isn't going to stop piracy and even if it did, the argument that more people would buy their products is in support of MY argument as to why DAZ is doing this. You mention difference in sales. So you agree that DAZ created this as a source of revenue? If not, then you can't use it on both sides of your argument. You can't in one sentence deny that DAZ did it for a new source of revenue and then turn around and use source of revenue as a metric if DRM is impactful or not. This kind of double talk is not helping. And the irony is that the things you mention are actually in support of the very points I made.

About plan B, please specify when DAZ has ever gone back on a decision and implemented something different? There is no precedent. Without such a precedent, it is you who are speculating about DAZ's behaviour, not me.

And about DAZ sticking with DRM forever. Why would this need explanation? The end is when the company goes out of business. Could be soon, could be a 100 years from now. What is difficult to understand here?

And nothing you've said thus far applies to DRM. It is NOT part of a business plan. DAZ does not provide end products. They provide content creation tools and assets. The notion of adding DRM in such a scenario is completely different to the unrelated examples you've mentioned.

Again, I'll repeat that my two assertions above are incontestable. Only if you reject logic can you attempt to argue against it. This is how you end up with silly arguments that a company will do something for no revenue and no benefit to the end user. There is a PERCEIVED benefit to DAZ. And if you're suggesting it's not money, you're the one who needs to put your best foot forward and show conclusive proof. In business, saying that a company does something for their bottom line is NEVER speculation. It is the rule. Because if they're doing thing with no benefit to revenue, they will find themselves out of business in short order and my being wrong won't matter anyways because it means DAZ did something so stupid (and knowingly so) that it ran them out of business, something I've said I'm not willing to entertain. So in the future, please try to make more coherent arguments as what you've shown so far is not a productive use of anyone's time.