141–150 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not DRM, it's just a way for 3rd parties to plug in their own DRM system. Sorry, that's worse, not better.
Third parties, namely Flash and Silverlight, already plug in their own DRM systems via NSAPI. How is this worse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that is decidedly against the public interest. I'm surprised that this is upvoted to the top of the thread, when you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is---as if the DRM's detractors don't already know…
> you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is The link is the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec. EME is not DRM. It allows access to a decryption system outside of the browser. That is different than what Cory and others are claiming.
I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users. I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the boa…
"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be conce…
Obviously in a perfect world, DRM would be illegal (or at least, frowned upon by consumers), and all content would be available in a globally accessible digital library that magically compensated creators. But that would represent a huge shift in economics which would have to take place at the level of law and public policy, not the technology used to facilitate the transaction.
The situation is analogous to abstinence vs. sex education for young people: if they're going to do the wrong thing (DRM/promiscuity), they should at least do the wrong thing the right way (web standards/using protection).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe in unions then? Unions are pretty much the same thing. They inflate wages and force companies to pay workers a wage that would otherwise be much less. That's the neoliberals or naive american's view on unions. People all over the world would beg to differ. Unions restore (some) of the imbalance in power between the employeer and the individual worker. The protect people that need a job to feed their…
> to the 8-hour work week You're a couple deacdes early with that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not DRM, it's just a way for 3rd parties to plug in their own DRM system. Sorry, that's worse, not better.
Third parties, namely Flash and Silverlight, already plug in their own DRM systems via NSAPI. How is this worse?
But Flash and Silverlight are dead or dying and were never public specifications we cared about. What I consider 'worse' here in this proposal is that we'd kind of 'bless' the DRM layer in HTML. I fear a comment like "Hey, it's part of HTML 5 so it has to be good, right?" if nonsense like this is added.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would they? Even ripping DRM-free YouTube videos is beyond most people. I don't see YouTube piracy as a big world problem.
What DRM-free Youtube videos? Youtube uses DRM-enabled flash player and locks down the ability of people to copy videos. Besides Youtube is a free service, that everyone basically assumes will continuously be there. You're bringing up non-related factors.
http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/
I don't believe that someone would cancel Netflix because they happened to have ripped all of the things they are interested in. The value of Netflix is accessing an enormous library, vastly bigger than you could store (changing all the time!) and watching an item that you feel like watching at this time. A Netflix subscriber can't exactly predict every single item they'll be interested in until the end of time, rip them, then cancel.
Even if there were a few people that did this, they would make up an incredibly tiny proportion of paying users, and they'd likely be akin to the digital hoarders that have TB of movies downloaded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like HBO. It is not terribly shocking that those monopolies lead to profits, and that companies that fail to take advantage of the copyright system would have trouble. You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright there would be no profit available for people who make entertainment. I am not really sure where you get th…
>We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like HBO. I don't even know how to respond to this... last I checked cable and Satellite companies don't force HBO on you. And while cable companies held a semi-monopoly before Satellites, that market got disrupted like 30 years ago. Let it go. >You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright there would be no profit ava…
...because they have to compete with studios that enjoy that monopoly that I mentioned above. You seem to have been confused about what that monopoly is; I think you typically call it copyright. Yes, copyright is a special, government-granted monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like HBO. It is not terribly shocking that those monopolies lead to profits, and that companies that fail to take advantage of the copyright system would have trouble. You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright there would be no profit available for people who make entertainment. I am not really sure where you get th…
>We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like HBO. I don't even know how to respond to this... last I checked cable and Satellite companies don't force HBO on you. And while cable companies held a semi-monopoly before Satellites, that market got disrupted like 30 years ago. Let it go. >You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright there would be no profit ava…
...because they have to compete with studios that enjoy that monopoly that I mentioned above. You seem to have been confused about what that monopoly is; I think you typically call it copyright. Yes, copyright is a special, government-granted monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. And when we live in your Star Trek-style technoutopia, then we won't have to worry about business concerns in specs. Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever.
Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever. Good specs haven't.
An obvious "business concern" is that any replacement system will accommodate future legislative changes. This has nothing to do with the functional (user) requirements (form design and submission process), and yet might dramatically change how you design and write such a system.
DRM, or rather the encryption scheme that makes it DRM, is much the same in that a design that supports it could similarly support related but more benign capabilities, such as compression or translation.
That too will influence an implementation, and makes such a non-functional requirement as important as a functional requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM didn't stop House of Cards from appearing on PB: http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0 I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.
Yea, but my point is different than a cracked version leaking into bittorrent. That doesn't have a drastically large footprint. If they streamed videos with no-DRM, everyone with a subscription would easily grab a copy of whatever they want. And all it would take is copying a file and sharing it with friends/family to have it spread. This might not seem like a huge difference, but honestly I think it would be. It wou…