3 ms·
> As long as major content providers want it, there is going to be DRM one way or the other. It's not so simple. Content providers want to distribute on the we
by azakai 11y ago
> As long as major content providers want it, there is going to be DRM one way or the other.
It's not so simple. Content providers want to distribute on the web. Yes, they have the ability to just pull out and avoid that space entirely, but that's not good for them. The web needs their content, but they also need the web.
In other words, the W3C saying no to DRM would apply pressure in the right direction.
That suggests positions can be shifted. And we have seen them shift before, with music downloads, which used to be DRM'ed, but no longer are.
- zanny 11y agoExcept the web doesn't really need their content. The web exists and will continue to flourish regardless of the availability of commercial hollywood films and television on it. It got this far without ruining open standards, and the MAFIAA lobby forced DRM bullshit upon it because they fear for their long term viability. That is a sign they were losing the battle, and they absolutely were with the rise of youtube, facebook video, twitch, etc - alternative video sources were / are starting to get professional, with many major youtube channels having production crew and proper film / showmaking. The web would have been absolutely fine without them, but they knew they would not survive without the web long term, especially internationally.
- tptacek 11y agoIn exactly what way would the W3C "saying no to DRM" apply any pressure at all? The W3C cannot ban plugins.