W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

Post by wolfgke » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #169

wolfgke wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight. * OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any…

Flash and Silverlight plugins have been used by Netflix/Hulu on desktop browsers. I highly doubt nobody you know has installed them. It's much more likely they simply don't tell you they did or it never came up in conversation.

Post by fghtr » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #121

throwaway613834 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? Or do you really think these people have no idea what they're taking about?

Not really. If it's available to view, it's available. Full stop. There's no way around that. You can't magically change the universe so that content that's viewed can't be captured. It HAS to be converted to analog somewhere. That signal can always be captured and converted back to a digital form that's no longer embedded with DRM. Best case: you make it marginally more difficult for a mom&pop computer user to copy…

Post by _dev_pts_0 » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #25

Accacin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM doesn't and will never work. It only serves to annoy people that pay for the movie/game/whatever legitimately. It's against everything the W3C stands for. You dont' have to support something just because it's happening. You fight it, you don't give into it.

I think you mean "against everything the W3C used to stand for" here. Clearly they stand for DRM now.

Post by sgift » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #177

bubblethink wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.

> What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. This was rather the point of Fall of Men ("Zeitpunkt des Sündenfalls") in Firefox' history to me. It was also the point in time where I stopped donating to them.

Post by Crontab » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

MattSteelblade wrote: post #175

Crontab wrote: post #97

Tim Berners-Lee must be rolling in his grave.

He signed off on this...