|
|
|
|
|
by emn13
1882 days ago
|
|
The point is that nobody relevant is going to get stopped by this DRM. That's because nobody relevant is likely to even try copying it in the first place, and if an economically relevant party were so unwise, I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. They might learn some tricks sure, but the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none. (And if there really is some kind of secret sauce that needs protecting, relying on DRM seems quite... optimistic. Finally, we're only talking front-end here, not backend; and surely that's at least as important a part of the value proposition here. While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it. |
|
Attackers don't care about laws. All they care about their end goal.
You have fraudsters who game the AdWords, reCaptcha etc
Gmail is a strategic tool.
>> the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none
You are underestimating value of Gmail product. I'm not allowed to share what kind of value the client side has but it certainly does.
>> While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it.
Again, you are underestimating value Gmail provides to consumers.
This country is a democracy. Companies can obfuscate or de obfuscate code at their wish whether there is value or not.
Privacy people can use Privacy oriented tools or go build their own seriously.
DRM is a billion dollar industry!