4 ms·

The unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics. In the music indust

The unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics. In the music industry, DRM seemed inevitable until one morning Steve Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Then the whole thing crumbled overnight. iTunes was not "pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access". Users did prefer to buy DRM-free music, bolstering iTunes marketshare in the process. The historical record demonstrates the opposite of your hypothetical. If Chrome or Safari drew a line in the sand and said "No DRM", that would be the end of DRM on the web. It seems they are not willing to do that. But that is a reflection on the lack of leadership at the technology companies, not on the inevitability of DRM.

Karunamon 10y ago
No it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do, and the others are left in worse shape. I'm no fan of DRM, but again, it's the world we live in.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. And this is how it should be. I want users to get tired of installing more plugins. I want them to roll their eyes when a site says "you need to do add $x to be able to use this site." We had the same problems with mp3's, and we won out. I see no reason we can't win out with any other media.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    And this is how it should be Only if you ignore: * Users "rolling their eyes" means nothing when they'll gladly click OK to dismiss all the security warnings and installations of n plugins so they can watch Netflix. They'll complain, but the plugin will still be installed at the end of the day. I'd rather that plugin be sandboxed. * That the practical implications of lessened security are more real, hence important than the theoretical concerns by a sandboxed plugin who's entire mission in life is stopping you from recording a fscking video stream. The user you're talking about, the one who signs up for Netflix, gets prompted to download a plugin, shakes their head sadly and cancels their subscription because DRM is evil, doesn't exist outside of FSF patrons.
eridius 10y ago
Everybody loves to bring up MP3s as an argument in favor of the notion that, if someone stands up to DRM, the entire industry will shift to no longer require DRM. And that's complete bullshit. You're extrapolating a very extreme position from a single instance, one that is arguably unique. Not only that, but it's also wrong. Music DRM did not die. DRM on purchased music went away, but streaming music still has DRM. So the music industry didn't even completely ditch DRM like you claim it did.

Karunamon 10y ago

No it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do, and the others are left in worse shape. I'm no fan of DRM, but again, it's the world we live in.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. And this is how it should be. I want users to get tired of installing more plugins. I want them to roll their eyes when a site says "you need to do add $x to be able to use this site." We had the same problems with mp3's, and we won out. I see no reason we can't win out with any other media.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  And this is how it should be Only if you ignore: * Users "rolling their eyes" means nothing when they'll gladly click OK to dismiss all the security warnings and installations of n plugins so they can watch Netflix. They'll complain, but the plugin will still be installed at the end of the day. I'd rather that plugin be sandboxed. * That the practical implications of lessened security are more real, hence important than the theoretical concerns by a sandboxed plugin who's entire mission in life is stopping you from recording a fscking video stream. The user you're talking about, the one who signs up for Netflix, gets prompted to download a plugin, shakes their head sadly and cancels their subscription because DRM is evil, doesn't exist outside of FSF patrons.

eridius 10y ago

Everybody loves to bring up MP3s as an argument in favor of the notion that, if someone stands up to DRM, the entire industry will shift to no longer require DRM. And that's complete bullshit. You're extrapolating a very extreme position from a single instance, one that is arguably unique. Not only that, but it's also wrong. Music DRM did not die. DRM on purchased music went away, but streaming music still has DRM. So the music industry didn't even completely ditch DRM like you claim it did.