I honestly believe this is just a small component, which is a part of the long term strategy of the RIAA and others: a periodical check to test the waters to se

I honestly believe this is just a small component, which is a part of the long term strategy of the RIAA and others: a periodical check to test the waters to see where public opinion is at, to be able to guage if they can implement more dramatic and restrictive DRM mechanisms yet [1]. They are either 1) waiting for us to be too exhausted to notice/care/fight back, or 2) seeing whether they have to go further to 'protect content creators' by lobbying for more draconian laws that allow for the use of new DRM strategies. It reminds me of reading about how Corporate personhood was invented to protect freed slaves [2], yet is now used as a way for business owners to avoid personal liability/responsibility. One could even argue that Corporate personhoood is one of the most destructive forces that exists today; causing some of the worst crimes in modern history [3]. It's important we continue to fight back and set a precedent for protecting users over corporations or governments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read [2] https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-corporate-personhood-made-corporations-into-people https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-corporate-person... [3] https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/05/corporate-personhood-and-the-culture-of-pathology/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/05/corporate-personhood...