381–390 of 424 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does, in that it allows business agreements to be signed. Without DRM, old content industries aren't interested in playing.
and we aren't interested in the old content industries. they are "considered harmful" at best
I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or su…
> DRM only works if you don't know how it works. That's not entirely true, I don't think? What about AACS, which uses a very clever master key / sub key + key revocation mechanism. People figured out exactly how it worked well before it was actually "broken" - and it was broken by stealing private keys from devices. > For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell Steam is DRM. Sure, it's fairly nice as DRM goe…
Depends on what you mean by DRM. Many Steam games run without Steam and only use it as a platform for digital distribution.
I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or su…
Because the sames are stupidly, insanely reasonably priced. $5 for 20 hours of content? Games from time to time being 50% off? The ease of getting new content in a few clicks?
Contrast that with movies that are available for download at the same time they show up on DVD in stores: $15 for <2 hours of content that's probably not going to be that great, when my alternatives are to go to the movie store and pick it up for $2 as a rental or to pirate it for free.
I would happily use the legal services, if not for this DRM. Those services sometimes are even free (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I would happily pay for a subscription service (I pay subscriptions to a number of different of online sites, mostly journalism or data-organistion - I've no problem with that).
The industry standardising proprietary DRM in W3 will just ensure that I continue to support the distributed, end-user provided services which are DRM-free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about lowering the cost in areas to match the economy. I too think the cost of software in Australia is crazy.
They are the same thing. The exact same thing. All you're quibbling about is that you don't like where the pricing is set for the region in which you live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are NEVER forced to steal things that aren't essential to survival. Starving on the street and steal a loaf a bread, that's one thing. Don't want to participate in many varied ways of listen to music for free legally and so choosing to steal the next big album you want to hear, not ok, ever.
To play devils advocate, I'm not sure why you think the very poor should be concerned about respecting copyright law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about lowering the cost in areas to match the economy. I too think the cost of software in Australia is crazy.
They are the same thing. The exact same thing. All you're quibbling about is that you don't like where the pricing is set for the region in which you live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born. The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specif…
are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf
The background on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ and rationale: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that was more-or-less what was being discussed. My understanding was that the media element being accessed would not play the stream unless a specified DRM component was available, most often due to a plugin installed to the browser. It wasn't that they wanted DRM in the open web, they wanted the open web to have the ability to communicate with a third-party DRM. A third-party solution that an individual ca…
>> A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate. A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.