US Government SUED Over DRM

[SentaiBrad]

Thoughts on any of this? I can probably assume most users here would say DRM is the devil. Let's keep the conversation fair and civil though. People or companies who utilize DRM aren't always trying to make our lives harder, but rather protect what they have from real issues that really do lose them money. There are some indie companies out there who do lose a lot of money to piracy. We've even had piracy issues, but we were able to fix them and we still believe DRM is mostly a waste of time and would rather make a killer product. We were able to find a way to do both without introducing DRM. Some products are not as easy of a fix, so obviously it's very complicated. We're not all as fortunate as CD Projekt Red who can not put in DRM and still sell 10 million copies so in a lot of cases it actually helps. Everyone who employs it is not greedy, but then we get to the bigger companies who would tend to view this more as a business venture instead and only employ DRM to try and make it as hard as possible instead of trying to create a better product. Both sides are valid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wwxjSMiLbA

[Beatlemaniac19]

Fair Use gets shoved aside from a few abusive big corporations. I agree that DRM is not bad in all cases, but there needs to be more rights for the consumers. YouTube is the worst offender. The fact that you can't play a song on a commercial channel or give a negative movie review without your video being flagged is ridiculous.

[SentaiBrad]

Playing a song on your channel is generally not Fair Use, unless you use it constructively. A bad review being flagged is blatant abuse, and YouTube is actually trying to fix that. DRM and Fair Use are completely different though. A DMCA take down of content, is actually, usually right. Most of the time, and I would say a big percentage of videos that get flagged are actually correct. Being flagged and being taken down are also two completely different things. I've been flagged many times in the past, but it doesn't count against you or the channel. A take down is the big deal, when you get an actual strike. Reviews being taken down are a big deal though, and are usually fair use and not ok to be taken down because someone didn't like it. That is straight up abuse. Someone making a video and including a song they don't own is generally not ok. Same deal with the DRM situation, both sides are technically correct, but it's the one's with the money or power that generally abuse the system and the average person gets caught in the middle.

[spacegoathlz]

DMCA is just another prime example of good intentions leading to unintended consequences and massive overreach. 

Yes, intellectual works, and the physical products of that should be protected by law from theft. 

NO, this shouldn't apply to critique, education, etc. 

The major problem is that the people that actually pass the laws don't have the expertise to be able to write the laws, so industry insiders write it for them, and they write it to be so all encompassing to catch every conceivable scenario until it affects teachers, reviewers, etc....

While these laws affect the larger companies dealing with the issues like YouTube (Google) they will NEVER be able to stop an individual, and in the age of the internet, an individual IS the world.

Remember when they went after individuals?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

24 songs. TWENTY FOUR. 

That couldn't hold up because the public was outraged over being fined $10k for stealing a $1 song. 

They really should be focusing on better encryption methods, like Denuvo for games. 

I don't see how they will EVER stop movies/music from being pirated. It's like trying to swat flies with a sewing needle since they quit trying to swat them with a manhole cover. 

[nmc]

Don´t worry about it! No matter what tax payers will pay. Just like that...everywhere!

Governments are very good spending people´s money.