Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider.

It's the same thing that happened on PC ages ago. If you don't like DRM, don't support games & apps that use DRM. Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful. At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM.

> Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider.

I've got enough blame for everyone involved, don't worry.

> Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful.

Appealing to the ethics of an entity that doesn't have any is not useful. But I wasn't writing to Google.

> At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM.

"Whatabout SecuROM"?

> "Whatabout SecuROM"?

I don't understand what you're attempting to get at with this.

PC DRM back in the day was notorious for rootkit vulnerabilities and even bricking CD/DVD drives (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ). The point was just at least SafetyNet isn't straight up broken like the wild-west of arbitrary DRM providers of yester-year.

This is whataboutism. Please stop.

I'd suggest you re-read that wikipedia page on logical fallacies a bit closer before attempting to accuse others of "whataboutism."

But clearly there's no value to be had to anyone by continuing to debate with you, so sure I'll stop.

Call it whatever you want: The extent to which SecuROM was harmful doesn't influence how we should judge Google's DRM. So why bring it up?