21–30 of 53 posts
Would anybody mind remembering me what we're going to gain on top of them thanks to DRM in the browser?
We already have YouTube, Netflix and many other similar services, commercial or ad based. They work pretty well and serve the needs of many people. Would anybody mind remembering me what we're going to gain on top of them thanks to DRM in the browser?
Why can't Tim Berners-Lee be fired? We build the web, not corporations. We control the web, not corporations. Let's just take the power away from them and put their egos in check.
"We" certainly don't control the web; for the most part, the organizations that develop the most influential browsers do, with some input from the W3C, which is itself controlled by its 420 members. The population at large mostly has a say by deciding which browser they use, and as long as people use DRM-friendly browsers, DRM is what they'll get.
The problem here is that 3/4 browser makers are also DRMs makers (Apple, Microsoft, Google) and are also the biggest W3C donators.
There must be people who find this style of writing persuasive, but for me it has the opposite effect. The tone is so aggressive and slanderous that even though I should nominally be on the side of the author, I find myself thinking "surely there is another side to this story" and come away with the feeling that I should step back and consider that maybe the other side is in fact in the right. It's like reading angry…
2) The portmanteaus are in-jokes for the people who already agree with the author. This makes me think that the author is so focused on their own social bubble that they haven't seriously wrestled with a well-written argument by the other side. If that is the case, then I can't trust the author to not have massively overlooked some important counter argument, so I have to go look for it myself.
3) The same as above, but also: life involves judgement calls and intuitive evaluations of situations. Sometimes, you see interpret another person's words in a way that is wildly detached from what they said. This makes you trust others interpretations less unless you can either see the primary sources yourself, or see them wrestling seriously with the other side's argument.
It would be nice if we judged all arguments just on their facts, but time is limited and so we have to make judgements like these.
We already have YouTube, Netflix and many other similar services, commercial or ad based. They work pretty well and serve the needs of many people. Would anybody mind remembering me what we're going to gain on top of them thanks to DRM in the browser?
There must be people who find this style of writing persuasive, but for me it has the opposite effect. The tone is so aggressive and slanderous that even though I should nominally be on the side of the author, I find myself thinking "surely there is another side to this story" and come away with the feeling that I should step back and consider that maybe the other side is in fact in the right. It's like reading angry…
I personally don't agree with this, and get the feeling that there's a very heavy corporate hand in place threatening to move consumers (e.g. Netflix saying people just want to watch video damnit) away from the open web by using alternative technologies. We're better off with EME than Flash and Silverlight, essentially.
I'm obviously grossly over simplifying things, but what I'm trying to say is that I think you're right, it's not as black/white as the parent article tries to make it. I'm not trying to pretend I'm some sort of expert on this topic – far from it – and certainly recommend anyone interested in this to spend some time and actually read the reasoning of both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We" certainly don't control the web; for the most part, the organizations that develop the most influential browsers do, with some input from the W3C, which is itself controlled by its 420 members. The population at large mostly has a say by deciding which browser they use, and as long as people use DRM-friendly browsers, DRM is what they'll get.
> the organizations that develop the most influential browsers do The problem here is that 3/4 browser makers are also DRMs makers (Apple, Microsoft, Google) and are also the biggest W3C donators.
I'd be surprised if that were true. (Do they donate anything? I'd be surprised if they did, I suspect they merely pay their membership dues.) The membership fees come at five levels, mostly dependent upon annual revenue; Apple, Microsoft, Google all pay the same as Adobe, Boeing, Dell, Facebook, HP, LG, Netflix, Siemens, Sony, Disney…
I'd like it if this happened. if the web has some standard way to ensure DRM that means it will be possible to sell media (and hopefully possibly software) on the web without requiring people to be online at all times. It would be even better if the entire thing was managed by the w3c, not just the endpoints. that way everyone could make use of it. I do not think everything should be free although it's good if there…
It would be nice, but EME doesn't do that. EME doesn't define the critical CDM component required for it to actually work. It's like a spec for ` ` tag saying it defines Flash. So in practice you still have to license CDM integration from Google (for Chrome's CDM only) and Microsoft (for IE's CDM only) and Apple (for Safari's CDM only) and Adobe (for Firefox's CDM only).