"No, the problem really is the existence of DRM. Its only purpose is to take control of a device that you own away from you and put it in the hands of someone else, against your will and against your interests."
Most DRM merely prevents you from doing something, it does not "take control' of anything, so your hacking comparison is not applicable in most cases.
Trying to ban DRM would be extremely problematic and no doubt result in unintended consequences and all sorts of abuse, as history demonstrates clearly. If instead the laws preventing the bypassing of DRM were repealed, DRM itself would become largely irrelevant, used only by companies blind to the will of their customers and not long for this world.
Nobody has ever claimed that "piracy has had no effect on the movie business". It's the likes of you that " continually mis-frame the issue".
What people take strong issue with is the loud and continuous claim that piracy is the sole cause of massive industry losses, while doing your best to ignore or obfuscate the non-piritanical causes that are largely of the industry's own making or beyond anyone's control (GFC), and grossly over-stating the dire state of the industry.
Here's a tip, change the message because nobody believes you.
""The DVD market is truly suffering, decimated by a combination of both legal sources like ITunes and Netflix, but also heavily because of piracy.
Jeez, if you're going to whinge about the suffering of the DVD market you might as well complain about the suffering of the VCR, laserdisc and reel-to-reel film markets as well. Complaining about the decline of a superseded technology makes you look a bit silly and won't convince anyone your argument has merit.
"The easiest way to spot it is to look at sales figures of equipment like home NAS drives, media streamers, and the like."
Yes, keep on demonizing modern technology. Coz that approach has worked so well in the past...
""IF snyder/whoever owns their own team, product, service, whatever, and they want to name it something that offends a bunch of people, then they should be free to do so...
THEY ARE, they're just not being allowed to have a government-sactioned right to prevent anyone else from using it too. This is actually the opposite of a restriction on free speech, it's preventing a restriction on free speech.
Yep, the suicide story's a great way to demonise Apple. You hear about the high number of suicides at Foxconn, but the massive number of employees tends to get left out of that discussion. In fact Foxconn's staff suicide rate is far less than China's average. Im sure their working conditions are shocking compared to what we're used to, but they do actually seem to be less suicidal than the rest of the country.
"Nice to know he'll be coming for an extended stay soon."
So what you're saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken...
Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I'd be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.
What was the threat here? If the ATF had done nothing, no crime would've occurred. Crime would have been prevented by their lack of action. How is this not cops manufacturing threats? Explain your backwards logic to us please.
Thanks for pointing out what everybody already knows, and exactly why car buyers want manufacturers to be able to sell directly to them. I doubt there'd be much sympathy for dealers struggling to compete after decades of gouging the car-buying public.