431–440 of 1001 posts
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 Firefox if it doesn't have integrity?
Where the universal's free
You can find it anywhere
Yes, the future has been sold
(Blur 1995)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the W3C is the web. You'd be forking to what? This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
> This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. This was absolutely NOT wanted by Firefox. They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight. Don't put Mozilla in the same group as those other traitors.
But they ended up including DRM in their browser. So they're traitors and hypocrites, right?
Good! Let them do that, and let us keep working on things like ipfs, blockchain naming systems, matrix and host identity protocols. The more they try to corrupt the web, the more energy goes into fixing the broken architectures. Then one day, nobody will use the broken DRM net. Politics is a programmer's most wasteful use of his time. Code them out of business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? > Not really. If it's available to view, it's available. Full stop. Best case: you make it marginally more difficult for a mom&pop computer user to copy your content. Anyone with a lick of understanding and 100 dollars to buy some hardware will be able to get it without any problem. You literally just agreed with my point though.
The proof in the pudding is that every TV show and film is instantly available online to anyone who can work a BitTorrent client.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM. Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it? And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in t…
> Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it? The current state of affairs is that it's not just legal to use DRM, it's illegal (DMCA) to try and break a DRM scheme, _even if you do so in order to exercise your legally guaranteed fair use rights_. It seems to me that there should be some sort of sort of…
The comparison to deadly force.... seems hyperbolic. No one is in mortal peril. I would have voted you up without that. Those kind of statements make it impossible to have/take discussions like this seriously.
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…
If someone launches a new HTML-based Web with crippled javascript ( no network comm access, for one, including ability to trigger links or forms), some small, restricted subset of CSS, and much better built-in dynamic table and form elements, I'm there . This Web's about to be eaten by DRM and WebAssembly anyway. Pretty soon it'll just be a way to deliver QT apps (or some other framework that runs in WebAssembly and…
Hard to believe in 2017, but as recently as five years ago Google (of all people) published the Caja compiler [1] for sandboxed/statically verified JavaScript subsets, and there was AdSafe aiming for safe JavaScript as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.
Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.
As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions.
They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM has been part of content delivery ever since then. It has not ever seem to have decreased in popularity, quite the opposite. The browsers that 99.9% of people use have already implemented this standard for years anyway. It's not obvious to me that this decision…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.
And which browsers are going on this fork?