DRM allegedly is meant to stop distribution of unlicensed copies. Quite novel. However, from what I can observe, usually they seem easy to remove or circumvent, and its main use seems to be to stop legitimate users from using a given product.
For things like music, games and movies, as a response to this, I see hints of interest of going back to physical medias, as back when this type of media was mainstream, DRM, if present, was usually a local nuisance, and not a remote killswitch.
Besides being able to own the physical media, including being able to back them up (including scanning for books and the sort), the experience of using them can be quite nice too.
But something I don't spot quite as frequently is mentions of DRM-free medias distributed purely digitally. And if one is to "vote with the wallet" to try to push for better market practices, or even for ease of backing up or accessibility, I'd propose recommending those too.
Physical media is expensive to ship, harder to store, you can't carry around a rental store-worth of physical medias in your backpack, and due to distribution bottlenecks and licenses, the company can't produce as many copies, making it less accessible. And from what I can observe, people usually prefer contents to be easier to access, adding to the problem.
With digital, those things are dealt with, at worse requiring the user to double-click some file. And if/as DRM-free gets more trending, lack of killswitches starts to be normalized again among those that usually prefer the double-click.
So going back to the point, while there's value in physical medias, I think digital DRM-free may be better to promote, be it by purchasing or recommending, to try to push the market in a better direction.
What do you think?