DRM could be fair to the consumer, it just isn't in the interests of the publishers to make it so, and as a result the versions of it we have are not fair to the consumer.

Okay but what happens when the platform goes away, or decides to change the rules? That`s the only part I could see NFTs actually potentially answering. If the ownership verification was all done client-side via a blockchain it could potentially survive the shutdown of the store you bought it from.

Don't get me wrong, I can see problems with this. And potentially this could also be done with simple public key cryptography.

Video game ownership rights have been going downhill for years. Most games can disappear from your account at a whim, and you can't sell them on when you're done anymore. At least with blockchain-based DRM, you'd be able to sell it when you're done - and if the thing is hosted in a decentralized manner (IPFS, Pinata etc) then the creator can't simply delete it or delist it. You'd own it without permission.

In theory it could be a good idea. If done right.

How is it unfair? To me fair means making sure the creator gets paid without stomping on the rights of the purchaser; in particular, the right to keep the thing after the publisher has gotten bored of selling it, and the right to sell it, though that last one is a difficult proposition with digital goods, seeing as they don't devalue.

Not talking about that kind of thing. When I say digital goods, I mean things like games, things we currently have DRM for.

Of course, there being no reason to buy a game new if someone is selling it used, that part would never work.