51–60 of 632 posts
If yes, what's the difference which allows Chrome to work with DRM and doesn't allow another code to do that?
I don't think I understand the problem. What does it mean "won't allow DRM" - you can always write code which you like, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
Do you think most users even know what drm is, or that it's being run?
The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
let's address the elephant in the room. Google got the authority from everyone here who accepted chrome and IE DRM by default, to the point that even Firefox was forced to give in, so you all could be sedated by Netflix and other DRMed content.
Truth hurts. Is it too late to open up the web? I've already switched to Firefox.
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."
The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it.
Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open for downloading and republishing, even if it's for fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care. Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it. Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open f…
But being able to use the fair use rights means that you must not be sued for breaking the DRM on your own.
Flagging for inaccurate/inflammatory title. Google isn’t stopping the author from creating a web browser.
Just from creating a browser with a reasonable feature set, like, say, the ability to play non-obscure videos.
The only thing I wonder here is that DRM was a thing when he started working on this project, didn't he see this coming? By this I mean that project research should start with the hardest part, at least that's what I usually do.