3 ms·
> Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider. I've got enough blame for everyone involved, don't worry. > Complaining to SecuROM that they
by anoncake 7y ago
> Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider.
I've got enough blame for everyone involved, don't worry.
> Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful.
Appealing to the ethics of an entity that doesn't have any is not useful. But I wasn't writing to Google.
> At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM.
"Whatabout SecuROM"?
- kllrnohj 7y ago> "Whatabout SecuROM"? I don't understand what you're attempting to get at with this. PC DRM back in the day was notorious for rootkit vulnerabilities and even bricking CD/DVD drives (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ). The point was just at least SafetyNet isn't straight up broken like the wild-west of arbitrary DRM providers of yester-year.
- anoncake 7y agoThis is whataboutism. Please stop.
- kllrnohj 7y agoI'd suggest you re-read that wikipedia page on logical fallacies a bit closer before attempting to accuse others of "whataboutism." But clearly there's no value to be had to anyone by continuing to debate with you, so sure I'll stop.
- anoncake 7y agoCall it whatever you want: The extent to which SecuROM was harmful doesn't influence how we should judge Google's DRM. So why bring it up?