261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can't it? They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. This is a nontrivial problem.
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? > They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. Any evidence that they haven't had any success whatsoever in making it harder to save/distribute?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
It is opt-in AFAIK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mozilla ended up accepting EME in 2014, because otherwise it would have become "the browser where you cannot see videos" Rather: "the browser where you cannot see DRM-infected video" - which is an active protection of the user against malware.
...and which no-one will download. To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a ref…
Do you have any evidence or reason to believe there is actual corruption on the committee (aside from them making a decision you disagree with)? I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists…
With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers.
And:
"It is clear that the W3C allowing DRM technologies to be developed at the W3C is just a naked ploy for the W3C to get more (paying) member companies to join"[0]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and which no-one will download. To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.
So you claim that Firefox (and other browsers) should implement malware or a malware interface into their browser so that users don't have a reason to download and install some other malware?
It's the same logic that leads to them to support JavaScript.
Does not define DRM .. I am seeing a conflict with the title
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? > They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. Any evidence that they haven't had any success whatsoever in making it harder to save/distribute?
It's trivial to get almost any media content you want online for free right now.
Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a ref…
Frankly I'm far more interested in which developing or first-world locales, if any, exist where net freedoms like these are protected by the majority, rather than having to be fought for by the minority against a wave of complacency and apathy. I'm pretty much done with trying to fight the american capitalist ideology which empowers these companies to steamroll over the average consumer happy to give up their own rig…
Media delivery in 2017 is hardly an extortionary environment. Practically speaking, Americans spend very little of their income on the Audible/Netflix/HBO Gos of the world. Netflix costs $120 a year? Against a median household income of $55,000, that is next to nothing.
If anything, it's the opposite: there's a glut of content available to consume, in nearly every possible genre, at very low price points. There is far, far more good television than any person could reasonably watch, all for a couple thousandths of the typical person's annual wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems self-evidently unharmful, in that we appear to be in a golden era of delivering content online so extraordinary that it threatens traditional television networks. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular sentiment on HN, but here goes: at least with respect to video content, the industry seems to have largely proven DRM concerns unfounded. Update: modulo the Hickson concerns below. Continuing: DRM ce…
I think you're discounting the opportunity cost here. In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM, it's seems obvious that sooner or later visual media producers would be forced to the table, to gain access to paying consumers. We could be in a DRM-free world, without the inconveniences of elaborate technical restrictions on pass-through and mutual device compatibility, or black box b…
Well, that, or they would have went the direction of newspapers & news - give up on producing quality content, and instead cater to the lowest common denominator by producing the cheapest, most polarising content possible.