3 ms·
I'm not a lawyer, but if we look at the DMCA, 17 USC §1201 (A)(1)(a): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
by Igelau 7y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but if we look at the DMCA,
17 USC §1201 (A)(1)(a): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
No one is interested in perfect because the actual DRM is only a tiny sliver of the protection. The bulk of it is the threat of having to pay a huge settlement because you don't want to get the piss beaten out of you in court.
- gruez 7y ago>No one is interested in perfect because the actual DRM is only a tiny sliver of the protection. The bulk of it is the threat of having to pay a huge settlement because you don't want to get the piss beaten out of you in court. I don't find that argument convincing. I can't think of any famous cases of copyright holders or law enforcement going after rippers/encoders (the people who break the DRM and make it available for others to copy), but plenty of cases of them going after people who downloaded the content.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoAnd worse... You could have crappy DRM and if someone circumvents it. Its cheaper to produce and you can still prosecute the rippers.
- P_I_Staker 7y agoThat doesn't explain the cat an mouse game. DRM schemes are constantly updated to fix issues so that previous hacks no longer work. Occasionally, the industry invests big money into sweeping changes. If what you're saying is true, you'd expect the minimum reasonable measures to suffice. No need to invest in new methods. Yet they do. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in "perfect", if you had that product to give them; you could be a millionaire, the problem is that it's impossible, as far as we know.