I'm not, I'm citing their own comment in which they describe taking down 20,000+ illegal streams of their already DRM-"protected" content on launch day. He's describing it not being effective at all.
Glass windows, speed limit signs, the tax system (what?) provide value to the people affected by them. DRM is a pure negative for customers.
You’re assuming it would not have been 100,000 without the DRM. You cannot prove, or cite any research, showing it would not have been much worse. In which case, it could indeed be quite effective.
The entire argument you all are having is predicated on the assumption that the presence or absence of the DRM and/or the user's ability to defeat it in some way affects a user's ability to present a stream of the content.
I am telling you flatly that the users who are producing the streams have absolutely no concern or effect from the DRM. Most probably are completely unaware of it. It's quite literally as simple as plugging your phone into your computer with a $15 cable and pressing the Cast button on a webpage.
We as nerds are privileged to recognize that the $15 HDMI capture card in the above scenario is playing fast and loose with HDCP; maybe we understand systems like ContentID that don't rely on any of this; maybe we recognize that there could be stenographic data in the output that can identify us.
Anyway my objective is to emphasize that the lack of data isn't sufficient to imply a false hypothesis. Please don't exaggerate your point in an attempt to 'balance' an argument that doesn't seem likely to support a conclusion that content piracy would be much worse without DRM.
Indeed I can't, just like you cannot prove, or cite any research, showing it wouldn't have been 1,000 if the content was accessible without arbitrary artificial restrictions on the devices consuming it.
By all means keep taking down illegal streams. I'm not excusing the people providing them. I'm saying maybe stop treating every paying customer as if they're going to do that to the detriment of the service provided. Because it is negatively affecting the service.
I'm not, I'm citing their own comment in which they describe taking down 20,000+ illegal streams of their already DRM-"protected" content on launch day. He's describing it not being effective at all.
Glass windows, speed limit signs, the tax system (what?) provide value to the people affected by them. DRM is a pure negative for customers.