The alternative is that there is no way to protect IP on the web, which means that there is no incentive to transmit IP over the web which takes a shitload of value off the table.
These anti-DRM arguments smack of blind ideology.
Pretty hilarious to have put up with that at all.
Now my gaming library is a trivial folder of executables like it should be.
If there was no DRM you could just save the movie to your HD with little effort.
Enough people pay for streaming services to make them a viable business model. That's all the empirical data you need to show that DRM does work for its indented purpose.
...after subscribing to the streaming service. At which point they have your money.
And it's not like you can cancel your subscription after that because then you wouldn't get new content, which is the entire point of having a streaming service instead of watching the same pile of old DVDs you've had since 1998.
This is a major part of the argument being made here and helps to close the gap between blind ideology and serious issue.
I think what the EFF is saying her though is that the claimed protections for content creators is just a cover for anti competitive behavior.
If they would agree to only enforce DRM/DMCA laws on people abusing copyright laws it would be easier to get behind it.
Unfortunately, we have no protections on one side, and anti competitive shinanigans on the other.
You do if you don't want the material to show up on pirate sites, which is why they claim they want it.
> The alternative is that there is no way to protect IP on the web
Protect it from what? It can't be posting the material to pirate sites because it's already there. It can't be preventing users from making a fair use copy because that isn't a thing to legitimately want protection from.
You can try and legislate DRM all you want, but like a law to make pi=3 or enacting laws to declare that water not be wet, it is the wrong thing to legislate.
