3 ms·

DRM is a bad idea with worse implementations. It's presented as a way to enable legitimate customers to enjoy works while preventing pirates from getting them,

DRM is a bad idea with worse implementations. It's presented as a way to enable legitimate customers to enjoy works while preventing pirates from getting them, right? In practice, the opposite is true - rule-following buyers have restricted access to the things they buy, and rule-breakers still get to do what they want. The silly thing about DRM for media is that, fundamentally, anyone can break it with manual effort, just by transcribing the words, or recording the video/music. Besides, anyone who doesn't break DRM runs the risk that the vendor will take away access to the books they already paid for. It's happened before.

barrysteve 3y ago
I know, I've particpated on both sides. I can download from youtube right now with youtube-dl or jdownloader. But anything I upload to youtube, will (potentially) be copyright struck into deletion. Who cares what people record for personal use. Copyright strike any books uploaded to windows machines from usb sticks and ethernet cables, with the same copyright strike system. Then nobody will care when you time-shift or format-shift media you already 'own'. There is a clear bias in protecting cloud software/some games and hollywood products. That bias has always protected the 'economic interests' and left the average joe flat on his bum. If we live in a world where private conversations cannot exist, thanks to global survelliance, then your windows PC and copies of media, are subject to the same (bs) overseers. I didn't ask for this massive overwatch system, but now it's here....