Sigh... So you want me to argue with you about your speculation and opinion?

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.

Your generalising... Daz 3D have officially stated numerous times "Why encryption?" It's not rocket science. Though it seems many just don't want to accept the official explanation preferring to speculate endlessly about maybes. The flow on effects of rampant piracy add a cost to any business that trades in media or IP. How large that impact is and the amount of mitigation provided by DRM is debatable. There are many other cost impacts other than direct loss of sale or the likelihood of additional sales. For example in my own experience just this month to date I have received over 12 chargebacks, as an individual, from fraudulent credit card purchases. Each chargeback has an associated real world cost, are you saying there is no cost associated with copyright theft? Are you suggesting it's responsible for a business to not attempt to mitigate against known loss?

You've yet to indicate what metric DAZ would consider dropping DRM.

I have indicated, numerous time you just don't want to hear the answer. Daz 3D like any business would react to market or financial changes to best secure the future of their business interests. Every change, in any responsible business is monitored and modified as requirement demands. To do otherwise would be negligent. Daz 3D has at there disposal many data points.

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.

Who said anything about DRM stopping piracy? DRM is a mitigative effort to deter piracy. Mitigating loss does not equal new revenue stream, which seems to be what you're suggesting...

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.

Well let me see, what about Genesis 1 merge sexes to Genesis 2 agreeing that the sexes are better dealt with separately? Good enough? I expect not...

In fact I'm actually having a hard time discerning the key points to a lot of your last post to actually raise a challenge. It appears you make a statement and when it's challenged you just change the terms of that statement. For example you stated:

The only reason they would add encryption is if they're looking for additional sources of revenue.

When I raised facts that this is not the only use for encryption you ignored the evidence I linked and just changed the stance of the statement without actually adding any more data to give your original statement any more weight, leaving it still as a speculative suggestion.

So maybe I will just make a few bullet points.

1. Is Daz 3D placing encryption on some of their products to gauge market reaction and act to mitigate rampant piracy and any associated financial loss? YES
2. Does Daz 3D see encryption as a revenue stream generator? Unlikely, though secondary effects of added security may act to bolster the whole market segment and encourage growth in the creative pool of the business and be a blow to a growing culture of easy access and distribution pirated content.
3. DRM is in the far the majority of uses part of an overall system of security process to protect digital rights of assets.
4. Is usage of DRM an indicator to the long term viability of any business? No, In any business it would be considered as a single aspect of a greater whole.

I'm not going to go over why your two certainties are at best generalised possibilities, they would not even be start to be considered as certainties until the variable aspects of the statements have been pinned down to more definite statements, as it appears anything that challenges their validity is discounted as irrelevant with no actual declaration in the statement of what is relevant and no backing of actual evidence. In effect I would be arguing solely against your opinion, which would seem unlikely to change despite any evidence presented.

I'm not willing just to argue with your opinion, which you are well and truly entitled to. I'm agreeing with Richard that most things you are raising are speculation and your own opinion at best.