4 ms·
When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment, I'd rather have the latter. Yes, in ideal world there wi
by futurix 10y ago
When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment, I'd rather have the latter.
Yes, in ideal world there will be DRM-free streaming - but unfortunately that's unrealistic.
- josteink 10y ago> When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment Why? That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away. And that's ass backwards. You want non-free and closed? Cool deal. Go build it yourself.
- astrodust 10y agoFree as in freedom means companies are free to add things like DRM if the want and consumers are free to choose services that don't go down that path.
- aurelianito 10y agoMmmmmmm, only if I can edit the source of the DRM program and make my own modified version.
- CJefferson 10y agoYou want free and open? Go build that yourself. People do build Firefox and chrome without this, go download them and enjoy yourself.
- hsivonen 10y agoIf you don't want Widevine, you can simply uncheck the “Play DRM content” checkbox in Mozilla-distributed Firefox, and the CDM doesn’t get downloaded and gets deleted if it was already downloaded. No need for a different build. Be sure to uninstall Flash and Silverlight, too.
- scythe 10y ago>That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away. This argument implicitly assumes that the big cost of DRM is actually implementing the DRM. Everyone knows that isn't true. The social cost of DRM is the effect on the users' freedom, and if the users are using entirely proprietary applets they're probably less free than if they depend on a single proprietary library.
- kmicklas 10y ago> but unfortunately that's unrealistic. Why is it unrealistic? Hollywood just needs to be pushed harder. It worked for music no?
- zabuni 10y agoIt worked for music because they were stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket, iTunes and iPods, and then got screwed when Apple wanted to sell electronics more than music and wouldn't raise their prices. Movies aren't in the same situation. Movies are a great deal more fractured, and they will remain fractured. The movie studios will not let Netflix turn into the iTunes for movies.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoDid it? I have a feeling we're about to see more DRM with music. All the pieces are falling into place. Files get replaced with streaming (which is to files what a service is to a product), and I wonder how long it will take before more companies will follow Apple's suit by ditching the audio jack. Going full digital there will enable companies to set up fully DRMed path from memory to speakers/headphones, like they did with video.
- mschuster91 10y ago> to set up fully DRMed path from memory to speakers/headphones Unlike with video, where the signal ends up unencrypted only on the very last chip in the chain, namely the one that drives the (I'm taking a guess here!) thousands of pixel lines, this is not practical with audio signals - you can always intercept and easily record the signal in analog form, either right before the PA stage or if this does not work (because the D/A converter and PA are implemented on one chip) after the PA output. The signal will of course be affected by the PA frequency characteristics, but that can be compensated for - and you still get a perfect audio signal. Also, I highly doubt that professional/semi-professional home theater setups will ever ship with "smart" (i.e. more wires than just the +/- heavy-gauge, direct speaker power signal wires) speakers, so you get the analog hole right there, on the output matrix of the amp.