• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    It exists solely to rob consumers of ownership of their purchases. It can, has, and will continue to result in people losing access to products they have paid for and to which they have every ethical right. Performance impact is beside the point. DRM is theft and Denuvo is the worst offender out there.

      • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        A license is not owned, it is granted. A license is effectively a rental or lease. The words “buy”, “purchase”, etc are incompatible with the concept of licensing. If a thing is sold using words or terminology that imply ownership, then it is owned.

        I am not talking about legalities, I am talking about ethics. Laws have been carefully designed to enable and protect corporate theft. Implying a sale while not conveying ownership is theft. Taking measures to ensure consumers cannot own the things they understand they have purchased it theft. Preventing consumers from using or transferring the things they have purchased however they choose is theft. Defending or excusing theft is as unethical as theft itself.