Ron Rivest asked me, "I believe it will be illuminating to listen to your views on the differences between your Intel/IBM content-coverage proposals and existing practices for content material protection in it scrambling domain. The devil's advocate position against your situation would be: if the client is ready to buy extra, or specialized, hardware to allow him to see protected content, what's wrong with that?"
Earliest, I call it copy protection instead of content safety, because "content" is certainly such a meaningless phrase. What the technology essentially does is to deter copying. Such systems have an extended history in computing, starting with the primary microcomputers, minicomputers, and workstations. Except in really small niches, all such systems ultimately failed. Various failed as a result of active opposition from their customers, who purchased alternative items that did not restrict copying.https://apoio-aprendiz.com.br/
There is nothing wrong with allowing persons to optionally want to buy copy-protection items that they like. What's wrong is when:
Competing products are powered off the market
What's wrong is when persons who like products that basically record bits, or audio, or video, without the copy cover, can't find any, because they have already been driven off the marketplace. By restrictive laws just like the Audio Home Recording Action, which killed the DAT industry. By "anti-circumvention" laws just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Action, which EFF is currently litigating. By Federal agency actions, just like the FCC deciding per month ago that it'll be unlawful to offer citizens the capability