4 ms·

Yeah, the problem started when people decided installing a browser from an ad agency seemed like a good idea.

marcoperaza 10y ago
Why is reasonable DRM a problem in the first place? I'm paying Netflix $8 a month to watch thousands of movies whenever I want. Being constrained to a large number of devices that take some steps to prevent someone from ripping the movies is a fair tradeoff. It works flawlessly on my computer, on my phone, and on my xbox. The DRM hasn't bothered me once.
- zanny 10y ago
  Because I'm going to immediately argue with you that there is no reasonable DRM. It comes from two ideological positions. One believes that content creators need complete systemic control of what they make - at all costs (that the creator maintains full control no matter how the content is interacted with) - and the other is that content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought), and all real world implementations fall between those extremes. But when it comes to DRM, it should be understandable that plenty of people (myself included) are not willing to allow third party companies to run proprietary code (the drm) on my hardware for the exclusive purpose of preventing me from interacting with data on my own computer (the streamed movie / music). When web browsers start baking in this proprietary functionality, it forces me to look for alternatives to the established open source browsers. If you are content with that relationship with content (heh) providers, then this is not your fight. But at least accept that a lot of us want to own our computers, and proprietary software takes away that right, and DRM is just one of the more visceral forms proprietary software takes where its entire purpose is to impede the users ability to control their computers.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    So, install a DRM-free browser on your universal computer and get a dedicated box for the subscription service? Except for perfectly avoidable waste, what did I miss?
    - jasonkostempski 10y ago
      The problem is, eventually, no one is going to make an DRM-free browser because "no one" will use it if they can't watch movies or access whatever other content will be locked down with EME. Firefox let's you easily disable DRM, for now, I have no faith it will remain that way forever. If content providers were really never going to give up on DRM requirements, I think a standardized "Media Browser" specification should have been created with the only goal being audio/video delivery, completely separate from web standards. I don't even understand why Netflix wants to be under the thumb of the major browsers, they should be the one's looking for a dedicated solution so they can declare independence.
      - problems 10y ago
        Yes, the bundling is ridiculous, but as long as the browser is open source, it'll still be possible to disable it - it's a tiny amount of code to allow that to happen, not a high maintenance effort item at all.
  - merb 10y ago
    > or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought your never bought content. you only rented it. this is especially true on netflix & co
  - Razengan 10y ago
    > content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought) How should content creators protect against people who access their content without buying it?
    - problems 10y ago
      They quite frankly can't technically, only legally - they're selling a 0 margin good, anyone who has it can basically give away infinite copies at zero cost per additional copy. Anyone who wants it for free will have it for free. They need no more than drop a few words into Google or type the name of something into a fully automatic tool like Sonarr. It's pointless for them to bother trying to stop piracy, especially of analog content using technical means.
      - Razengan 10y ago
        So how do we ensure people keep making quality content and software? Should they give it away for free by default and just count on charity? Seems to me the only ultimate solution is to have some kind of guaranteed basic income, at least for all people that aren't involved in the creation of tangible goods (that can't be copied at zero cost).
        problems 10y ago
        Or - without doing any of that - just ship it on the honor system - no DRM. GOG does it and they still get more than 1 sale per game.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        "but it's not perfect, someone could just xyz and abc and get around the system." DRM is not about being perfect against a dedicated pirate. Just like locks on doors, it's about putting up a few barriers that serve to keep the vast majority of people honest. No one is under any illusions that DRM will stop movies and games from showing up on torrent trackers.
        10y ago
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Razengan 10y ago
Does anyone remember what the prevailing mood was like when/before Chrome started becoming popular? Were people simply happy to see more companies putting a dent in that avatar of Lovecraftian horrors that was Internet Explorer? Why didn't Mozilla work harder to catch up with Chrome and counter Google? Was it a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend?" And why did Opera slip away into the mists of obscurity? I remember it being pretty good and it was actually my main browser for a year or so.
- problems 10y ago
  > Why didn't Mozilla work harder to catch up with Chrome and counter Google? Was it a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend?" I'd argue that this "catching up to Google" was more their problem than their solution. In making Firefox more and more Chrome-like they took away many unique and important Firefox features and they keep moving further and further in that direction. They now want to trash XUL and move to an extension framework that exactly matches Chrome's, removing the deep flexibility and customization that Firefox users have enjoyed. Several of my favorite extension authors have already announced they're giving up when that change happens. If your browser just plays catch up without differentiating itself in any significant way, why would anyone use it? Mozilla came up with some cool UI ideas, but never implemented them, or quickly did so, got them to a tiny percentage of their full potential and then abandoned them. That's the kind of thing they should be focusing on - that's the kind of thing that made Firefox gain market share in the first place. Instead they keep playing catch up. And playing catch up with a massive codebase against a giant company is incredibly hard. Right now Brave is doing a better job differentiating itself and it's built on top of Electron - on Chrome's core codebase. If it were a little more active I think it'd have a shot at something.

Why is reasonable DRM a problem in the first place? I'm paying Netflix $8 a month to watch thousands of movies whenever I want. Being constrained to a large number of devices that take some steps to prevent someone from ripping the movies is a fair tradeoff. It works flawlessly on my computer, on my phone, and on my xbox. The DRM hasn't bothered me once.

zanny 10y ago
Because I'm going to immediately argue with you that there is no reasonable DRM. It comes from two ideological positions. One believes that content creators need complete systemic control of what they make - at all costs (that the creator maintains full control no matter how the content is interacted with) - and the other is that content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought), and all real world implementations fall between those extremes. But when it comes to DRM, it should be understandable that plenty of people (myself included) are not willing to allow third party companies to run proprietary code (the drm) on my hardware for the exclusive purpose of preventing me from interacting with data on my own computer (the streamed movie / music). When web browsers start baking in this proprietary functionality, it forces me to look for alternatives to the established open source browsers. If you are content with that relationship with content (heh) providers, then this is not your fight. But at least accept that a lot of us want to own our computers, and proprietary software takes away that right, and DRM is just one of the more visceral forms proprietary software takes where its entire purpose is to impede the users ability to control their computers.
- usrusr 10y ago
  So, install a DRM-free browser on your universal computer and get a dedicated box for the subscription service? Except for perfectly avoidable waste, what did I miss?
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    The problem is, eventually, no one is going to make an DRM-free browser because "no one" will use it if they can't watch movies or access whatever other content will be locked down with EME. Firefox let's you easily disable DRM, for now, I have no faith it will remain that way forever. If content providers were really never going to give up on DRM requirements, I think a standardized "Media Browser" specification should have been created with the only goal being audio/video delivery, completely separate from web standards. I don't even understand why Netflix wants to be under the thumb of the major browsers, they should be the one's looking for a dedicated solution so they can declare independence.
    - problems 10y ago
      Yes, the bundling is ridiculous, but as long as the browser is open source, it'll still be possible to disable it - it's a tiny amount of code to allow that to happen, not a high maintenance effort item at all.
- merb 10y ago
  > or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought your never bought content. you only rented it. this is especially true on netflix & co
- Razengan 10y ago
  > content shouldn't be controlled (or that I, as a buyer of content, should control the content I bought) How should content creators protect against people who access their content without buying it?
  - problems 10y ago
    They quite frankly can't technically, only legally - they're selling a 0 margin good, anyone who has it can basically give away infinite copies at zero cost per additional copy. Anyone who wants it for free will have it for free. They need no more than drop a few words into Google or type the name of something into a fully automatic tool like Sonarr. It's pointless for them to bother trying to stop piracy, especially of analog content using technical means.
    - Razengan 10y ago
      So how do we ensure people keep making quality content and software? Should they give it away for free by default and just count on charity? Seems to me the only ultimate solution is to have some kind of guaranteed basic income, at least for all people that aren't involved in the creation of tangible goods (that can't be copied at zero cost).
      - problems 10y ago
        Or - without doing any of that - just ship it on the honor system - no DRM. GOG does it and they still get more than 1 sale per game.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      "but it's not perfect, someone could just xyz and abc and get around the system." DRM is not about being perfect against a dedicated pirate. Just like locks on doors, it's about putting up a few barriers that serve to keep the vast majority of people honest. No one is under any illusions that DRM will stop movies and games from showing up on torrent trackers.
      - 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Razengan 10y ago

Does anyone remember what the prevailing mood was like when/before Chrome started becoming popular? Were people simply happy to see more companies putting a dent in that avatar of Lovecraftian horrors that was Internet Explorer? Why didn't Mozilla work harder to catch up with Chrome and counter Google? Was it a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend?" And why did Opera slip away into the mists of obscurity? I remember it being pretty good and it was actually my main browser for a year or so.

problems 10y ago
> Why didn't Mozilla work harder to catch up with Chrome and counter Google? Was it a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend?" I'd argue that this "catching up to Google" was more their problem than their solution. In making Firefox more and more Chrome-like they took away many unique and important Firefox features and they keep moving further and further in that direction. They now want to trash XUL and move to an extension framework that exactly matches Chrome's, removing the deep flexibility and customization that Firefox users have enjoyed. Several of my favorite extension authors have already announced they're giving up when that change happens. If your browser just plays catch up without differentiating itself in any significant way, why would anyone use it? Mozilla came up with some cool UI ideas, but never implemented them, or quickly did so, got them to a tiny percentage of their full potential and then abandoned them. That's the kind of thing they should be focusing on - that's the kind of thing that made Firefox gain market share in the first place. Instead they keep playing catch up. And playing catch up with a massive codebase against a giant company is incredibly hard. Right now Brave is doing a better job differentiating itself and it's built on top of Electron - on Chrome's core codebase. If it were a little more active I think it'd have a shot at something.