181–190 of 632 posts
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.
How did "DRM video player" become part of the "reasonable feature set"?? Don't most people use dedicated apps for Netflix anyway?
How does firefox manage to play drm content? Maybe OP could use firefox's approach? Someone mentioned below that redistributing is not allowed, but downloading at runtime is ok. Not sure about it, but if anyone knows about this, please explain it to the rest of us.
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.
Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.
"when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum" Does Netflix DRM even "work"? I've never personally seriously looked around for how to break it, but I note there are still plenty of people who seem to manage to review Netflix-based shows on YouTube with video clips of sufficient quality [1], and at least some of the reviewers in question I am fairly confident aren't getting any sort of privileged ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the W3C making the right decision would make them irrelevant then what has actually happened is that they're already irrelevant, and becoming a rubber stamp on bad ideas only serves to prove that and erode their credibility. Moreover, such organizations are made up of their members, and it's up to the members to do the right thing as well. Nobody had to volunteer to be the first to add this gunk to their browser.…
This is just the age old discussion of whether it's better to capitulate in small ways so you can steer a group away from bad behavior/decisions later or to make a stand on principle to draw attention to the current bad decisions. As much as some people like to say one is better than the other, I think the answer is always "it depends". Unfortunately, it depends not only on the relative power and momentum behind the…
The browser should explain clearly what's wrong and what to do when a site requires DRM. Don't be like QuickTime, where opening any unsupported file bounces you to a FAQ page where the question you most likely have ("how do I view this video") leads to a huge run-around.
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.
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.
That's like saying the blame for pollution caused by burning coal lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone who uses electricity. Decisions are made, 99% of people have no clue what's going, and it's unreasonable to expect them to.
If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it.
If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company.
IMO ordinary members of the public take more responsibility in that because it's relatively straightforward to understand: buy your electric from renewable generation and get less negative environmental impact.
Understanding the best sources of power is hard however, so consumers have to trust published government research for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.
No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the…
Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support
media content, but to do so requires towing
the line with the media companies
If it weren't for Google Play Movies and iTunes Movies they could have just told the MPAA companies to take a hike.
How does firefox manage to play drm content? Maybe OP could use firefox's approach? Someone mentioned below that redistributing is not allowed, but downloading at runtime is ok. Not sure about it, but if anyone knows about this, please explain it to the rest of us.