The widevine-l3-decryptor takedown wasn't filed by the RIAA

I am out of the loop. What happened to Widevine?

> We have to win every little battle, but all they have to do is win once.

"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."

-Provisional IRA after almost assassinating Thatcher in a bombing

Creating or providing a tool and using a tool are not the same action. Likewise, since there are legal fair use scenarios of copyrighted materials (short clips, criticism, satire, academic, etc) so even using the tool isn't inherently against the law and the person creating or providing the tools can't know and legally doesn't need to know the end user's intentions.

Copyright lawyers working for the highest profile abuser of copyrights absolutely know the very basics of copyright law and are therefore acting in bad faith.

That piracy causes client damages is a debatable point. Studies have shown those who pirate software, movies, television, etc., will rarely use or consume that content if they didn't pirate it. I know way back when, when I pirated stuff voraciously, if I couldn't find something I just never read/saw/used it. Not once in my life have I spent days or weeks trying to pirate something only to turn around and pay for it. Some (not all) studies even show that in the case of software, piracy in some cases leads to legitimate use, i.e. purchasing.

Now there's no doubt that piracy violates copyright law. We can debate whether or not that's a good thing, whether the laws in question are just, etc., until the end of time. But it's not a foregone conclusion that piracy has any negative economic impact on copyright holders.

Git+your OS make it easy to acquire this software, Your browser and OS collude together to make it easy to run it, The elecric supply to your house makes it easy to run the computer that runs the OS, ...

Do you really want a world where this scumbags should go after everything that "makes it easy" to do illegal activities?

By this right, Zoom/ Google Meet / Teams have screen recording that would allow for this as well. How deep should we go down this hypothetical rabbithole?

Even if we take that as a given, my response would be: "Yes, so what?"

The software also a long list of legitimate uses, as was demonstrated by the various prominent users that spoke up.

I can use the camera on my phone to record a copyrighted movie, and thus circumventing the DRM, or just use a device like this: https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-USB3HDCAP-Video-Capture-... (analog VGA is probably preferred here, for lack of HDCP support).

And that is only necessary if we're talking about some modern DRM that makes your OS work against you, so you can't directly capture with OBS or something.

We're gonna ban all of those now?

An awful lot of tools provide the opportunity for their users to break the law, and yet we still sell those tools and place the onus of following the law on the users. While guns are the obvious example, lockpicks are widely and freely available, as are a whole host of other items with which one could commit nefarious deeds.

Copyright law seems to be one of the only areas in which the fact that someone Could use a tool to commit a crime seems to be grounds for criminalizing the tool and not the act.