281–290 of 1001 posts
Is my math off, or is 58.4% a majority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to fully disagree. However, I do not feel it is the browsers job to ignore a potentially useful technology (albeit for some evil media companies) because you have a distribution/marketing problem with your own content. I think they will instead include this tech and make it usable for those who want it and continue supporting non-DRM media for those who don't want it. They're not going to…
> They're not going to block your ability to share your content without DRM. Of course not. Then they would block all of YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo along with all other video sharing platforms, not to mention adult ones. It would hit home too hard to require DRM be installed right away. But on the long run?
I would love to see how that's working out for them, but even to wonder about the experiment borders on paedophilia. This is a tough nut to crack. (punintended...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. Sometimes it's wise to retreat or lose a battle to stay in the fight.
> If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You build a plugin framework that lets users pirate keys without exposing the author to excessive DMCA risk.
I think the author of such a plugin would be at considerable legal risk.
If they are caught... ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's your solution (proposal) for the problem they faced?
> And what's your solution (proposal) for the problem they faced? Make the zero-tolerance for DRM a unique selling point of Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.
Hard to save and distribute only lasts until one party figures out how to get the content in an unencumbered format. Even if it was hard/expensive for them to do so, they can distribute it to the world easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. Also, your software can be as open source as you like, but if it can't interoperate with the rest of the Internet, i…
Its always been this way. I can't remember a time that open source software was front of mind even for those who Ould have had a vested interest in knowing about beyond computer scientists/engineers or their academic counterparts. There are exceptions, no doubt. I think generally though, this has always been the case. End users in particular usually don't know the difference nor do they care to (though as the allegor…