4 ms·
Dark days, indeed. Sacrificing the open web so some can watch movies.
by davexunit 10y ago
Dark days, indeed. Sacrificing the open web so some can watch movies.
- MBCook 10y agoTo a huge chunk of users video IS the web. If Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube didn't work (assume YT adopts DRM) the browser would basically be DOA for a HUGE chunk of people.
- cgearhart 10y agoSo...the _entire_ web should be saddled with DRM because people who don't care about the web wouldn't use it otherwise? Is the web better now because all those people now have _another_ way to passively consume video content?
- MBCook 10y agoThat argument works both ways. _NO ONE_ should have the option to view copyrighted videos because you don't want it? Yes, I think this improves the web. You no longer need the unmaintained disaster that was silverlight or the resource vampire and exploit factory that was flash. Users can choose to view this content in a safeER way than before. The only good argument against this is the 'we don't need DRM ' argument, but that hinges on the ability to get content you want in a non-DRM format and it seems clear that isn't happening anytime soon thanks to Hollywood et. al and I don't blame them.
- kefka 10y agoI wonder how long it will be for newsprint media companies to use this to "secure" their websites so that Adblockers cannot process the 'encrypted but you can't see' data?
- rimliu 10y agoHow does it sacrifice the open web again? Is there a law being passed that entire web should be DRMed?