3 ms·

Sounds nice and all, but part of me can't help but feel quite "eh" to see names like Netflix, Google and Microsoft in there, all responsible for bringing DRM in

by Daiz 11y ago

Sounds nice and all, but part of me can't help but feel quite "eh" to see names like Netflix, Google and Microsoft in there, all responsible for bringing DRM into HTML and moving the open web more toward a closed one. So while they might champion for the open web in cases like these, it's obvious that the only thing they really care about is their bottom line and not paying license fees on video formats.

NeutronBoy 11y ago
> So while they might champion for the open web in cases like these, it's obvious that the only thing they really care about is their bottom line and not paying license fees on video formats. So? Netflix and Google are the two biggest online video players. Without them, adoption is going to be pretty pathetic. You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations?
- Daiz 11y ago
  >You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations? Nah, I don't subscribe to the (unfortunately common) mentality of being exclusionary based on ideological purity evaluations. But since they obviously don't really subscribe to the idea of Open Web (as evident by their enthusiastic support for DRM in HTML, which is about as anti-Open Web as it gets), I guess I just wish they could be more honest about it. After all, what good is it that someone uses an "Open Media" format when it's put behind a completely closed black box barrier of DRM that you aren't even allowed to legally poke at thanks to anti-circumvention laws? I do think this particular development is very much a good thing for the Open Web, and I certainly don't doubt Mozilla commitment to that. But the whole HTML DRM debacle did leave a really bitter taste in my mouth.
Caspy7 11y ago
Companies definitely look for things that serve themselves. But they are not binary "all good" and "all bad." Those companies have also contributed open technologies as well. And this codec would have nothing in it inherently DRM or "closing." If successful this will be good for all of us, not just good for them and bad for us.

by Daiz 11y ago

NeutronBoy 11y ago

> So while they might champion for the open web in cases like these, it's obvious that the only thing they really care about is their bottom line and not paying license fees on video formats. So? Netflix and Google are the two biggest online video players. Without them, adoption is going to be pretty pathetic. You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations?

Daiz 11y ago
>You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations? Nah, I don't subscribe to the (unfortunately common) mentality of being exclusionary based on ideological purity evaluations. But since they obviously don't really subscribe to the idea of Open Web (as evident by their enthusiastic support for DRM in HTML, which is about as anti-Open Web as it gets), I guess I just wish they could be more honest about it. After all, what good is it that someone uses an "Open Media" format when it's put behind a completely closed black box barrier of DRM that you aren't even allowed to legally poke at thanks to anti-circumvention laws? I do think this particular development is very much a good thing for the Open Web, and I certainly don't doubt Mozilla commitment to that. But the whole HTML DRM debacle did leave a really bitter taste in my mouth.

Caspy7 11y ago

Companies definitely look for things that serve themselves. But they are not binary "all good" and "all bad." Those companies have also contributed open technologies as well. And this codec would have nothing in it inherently DRM or "closing." If successful this will be good for all of us, not just good for them and bad for us.