Posted September 30, 2021
low rated
LiefLayer: I don't think a streaming only service qualify as a drm-free service and I also don't think a store that sell you both drm and drm-free content based on the author decision qualify as a "worst offender".
I think a worst offender is a store that don't let the developer/author/publisher decide to publish drm-free or that only got drm stuff (that's a streaming service only too even if it does not use EME, like they say even if you can remove drm it still limit the user so why streaming only always online even if does not use EME is drm-free for them?).
That's the usual issue of what "is" a DRM and what peoples "consider" as being a DRM. As I said multiple times before just because something is "bad" doesn't means it is necessarily a DRM. I think a worst offender is a store that don't let the developer/author/publisher decide to publish drm-free or that only got drm stuff (that's a streaming service only too even if it does not use EME, like they say even if you can remove drm it still limit the user so why streaming only always online even if does not use EME is drm-free for them?).
And no streaming, and that include game streaming, as bad as it might be, is technically not a DRM in itself. DRM includes intent, the always online part of streaming is an inherent part of how the technology itself works, it's not something created specifically with the intent of controlling the user rights or limiting copies, the fact that it does is a side effect.
Otherwise it would mean that listening to radio was a form of "analog DRM" because it limited what the user could do with the music.