Correct. Even if you go with the 361k figure, that's still a lot of jobs threatened by failure of existing distribution models, which have caused a lot of job losses already. To win this argument, the tech infustry needs to offer a bettter explanation for how content creators can safeguard legitimate (economically efficient) revenue. Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.'
You are conflating privacy with censorship and surveillance here. That is a bit dishonest. To put this in perspective, remember in the book "1984" that the dystopia included both a heavily controlled media, and complete surveillance and lack of privacy. It's not hypocrisy to see both of those things as bad.
furthermore, I think it's a bit silly to claim that in order to win the argument, the tech industry must prove that its many millions of jobs are more important than the entertainment industry's 376K. That 376K may be important, but is it THAT important?
Internet warriors don't appreciate how hypocritical it seems to champion full disk encryption and ironclad privacy while simultaneously demonising DRM or anything similar. It's like saying 'all data should be locked down at all times unless I want to use it, in ehich case it should be free.'
It's hardly hypocritical to think that encryption and privacy should be in the control of the owner of a device, not the device's manufacturer or a third-party content producer.
