[baby_souffle]

Agreed. Reading this makes my head explode a little.

15 years ago, DRM was all about the DVD restricting where and when it could be played. Now it seems like we're using DRM to reassert our own rights?

This timeline is cursed.

[contextfree]

I think there was always a similarity or homology between DRM and many privacy scenarios that people care about:

Party A sends information to party B intended for use in a specific context, but wants to limit the risk of it being stored or forwarded for use by other parties or in other contexts.

DRM typically connotes that party A is a media company and the information is a movie or something, but - as in the case the article is about - party A could also just be a regular person and the information could be private personal info.

[gruez]

It's not even real DRM in any meaningful sense. It's just asking the OS really nicely to not allow the window to be screenshotted.