> When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms.

I disagree. The literal entire purpose of every single non-user entity involved in this situation is to serve users, and if it's not serving users, then that's a systemic failure. If corporations want a place at the table, they should be serving users, and if they can't serve users, there should not be a table for them to sit at, period.

In the cases referenced, that means DRM should be illegal, period. Platforms shouldn't have to allow DRM to attract content creators, because there should not be competitors that have DRM. If the option to have DRM doesn't exist, then platforms don't have to compete to attract content creators with user-hostile misfeatures like DRM.

Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations. Anything else is a failure.

I understand the law says corporations are people. I'm saying the law is wrong.

>they should be serving users

Bringing content users want to watch is serving users.

>DRM should be illegal, period

Why? It is preventing users from doing illegal things. Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me.

>Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations

People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators which in why making it possible to secure content is such a valuable idea.

DRM also prevents users from doing legal things. Such as making copies for personal use, which is legal in France. Or when done by library or archive, in the US. Or copying short clips, which is legal as "fair use" in many jurisdictions.

> People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed.

Tough shit. Copyright is entirely arbitrary, and it's bad actors have ruined it for everyone else. DRM will be evil for as long as "buying isn't "owning"; until then piracy will be strictly superior.

> Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators

And my kitchen knives by default make it way too easy to violate homicide laws. You can argue it is overall more beneficial to the consumer to disadvantage themselves so the market can thrive, but that's still an anti-consumer market.

>Copyright is entirely arbitrary

Even if copyright wasn't a thing some creators do not want their work to be copied.

>And my kitchen knives by default make it way too easy to violate homicide law

If kitchen knives were made impossible to use for homicide, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell homicide capable knives.

> kitchen knives were made impossible to use for homicide

Can't wait for kitchen knives that immediately self-destruct if you use them on items that didn't come from the knife manufacturer's grocery store.

> If kitchen knives were made impossible to use for homicide, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell homicide capable knives.

If content were made impossible to pirate, but could be made for the same exact price in the same amount of time and were just as effective at everything else there would be no reason for people to sell piracy capable content.

But, homicide-incapable knives and piracy-incapable content aren't real. They're a fantasy, which does not exist.

All DRM does is make it harder for legitimate users to access content they have paid for.

To add to that:

We cannot create homicide-resistant knives because it is indistinguishable from lawful slaughter and butchering knives. Similarly, computers have a powerful native feature - the ability to infinitely copy digital content until you run out of storage or electricity. This can be used for legal and nonlegal purposes, but neutering it's capabilities is unthinkable.

Copy protection tries to put the genie back in the bottle, and then blames the community when things go wrong. It's a circular process that resists advancement and protects exploitative parties.

> Why?

Read the rest of my post.

> It is preventing users from doing illegal things.

It's not, clearly. Search your favorite DRM'ed TV show name followed by "torrent S01E03" (to indicate season 1 episode 3) and see how well that DRM is working.

> Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me.

I didn't say that.

DRM should be removed so that users can access content they've paid for. DRM nearly always effects legitimate users.

> People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators which in why making it possible to secure content is such a valuable idea.

It's not a valuable idea, because it's an impossible idea. If you can view the content, you can pirate it. Period. DRM has done absolutely nothing to stop pirates and has consistently harmed users.

It's worth noting that content creators are often totally on board with releasing without DRM: it's content distributors who are worried about this, generally.

I worked for a couple years at a company that delivered electronic assessments. Their use case makes sense for control of the device ( these assessments were usually delivered to a classroom environment where proctors could observe physical cheating ). It took a lot of pushback with Apple to be allowed to “not allow screenshots”. Which, I think, is pretty great that they originally pushed back, but then understood the product.