3 ms·

> But I don't want the user's browser It's called the User Agent for a reason: it's intended to serve the user's wishes, not the website. Why do you think you

by pdkl95 10y ago

> But I don't want the user's browser It's called the User Agent for a reason: it's intended to serve the user's wishes, not the website. Why do you think you have any right to control how the User Agent presents the data you sent it? You don't even know (or control) which browser the user is using or the features it provides to the user. > they can inspect the page and download the video. Inspecting the page isn't necessary, and the user's agent (the browser) already downloaded the video. You need to realize you lost all control over that data when you decided to send it to the user. The addition of a button to save the already downloaded video is patenty a useful feature for a User Agent. The publisher's interests are not relevant. > some crummy Flash player that will [...] be unsafe. Given that you explicitly show you understand that using the Flash player is "unsafe"... > I'm going to have to use a crappy flash player ...this is intentionally exposing your users to known risks so you can pretend you have any control over what the user and their agent does with the data you sent them. The mental gymnastics involved in justifying that as anything even close to ethical behavior must be really impressive.

Silhouette 10y ago
Why do you think you have any right to control how the User Agent presents the data you sent it? Because in many cases the user has explicitly agreed certain terms for accessing that content? You need to realize you lost all control over that data when you decided to send it to the user. Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil and content providers shouldn't have any right to limit what users can do with their own equipment, because in the real world your positions are contradictory.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil I've been one of those people since about a decade before we called it "DRM". > in the real world your positions are contradictory. Maybe try re-parsing my comment? Why would I argue about DRM, which I never mentioned? Users do have the right to use their own property (a General Purpose Computer[1]). Obviously, they would be liable if they made copies of copyright protected work that were sent to them from a website, but the fact that tools can be used for illegal purposes or to break contracts doesn't change the fact that you still have the right to use those tools. This is true even when the manufacturer olf a tool adds a feature you don't like. > Because in many cases the user has explicitly agreed certain terms for accessing that content? So what? If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. Obviously. And just to be clear, this is the situation in many cases where people have been upset by these changes. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Sure it is, if the tool is actively promoting something that will interfere with a lawful contract with another party. The law often recognises this problem explicitly, in many jurisdictions. (If you weren't aware of this, you might like to look up "tortious intereference" as a starting point.) Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party. They cease to be unrelated when their actions interfere with the first two parties in a way that harms one of them.

by pdkl95 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

Why do you think you have any right to control how the User Agent presents the data you sent it? Because in many cases the user has explicitly agreed certain terms for accessing that content? You need to realize you lost all control over that data when you decided to send it to the user. Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil and content providers shouldn't have any right to limit what users can do with their own equipment, because in the real world your positions are contradictory.

pdkl95 10y ago
> Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil I've been one of those people since about a decade before we called it "DRM". > in the real world your positions are contradictory. Maybe try re-parsing my comment? Why would I argue about DRM, which I never mentioned? Users do have the right to use their own property (a General Purpose Computer[1]). Obviously, they would be liable if they made copies of copyright protected work that were sent to them from a website, but the fact that tools can be used for illegal purposes or to break contracts doesn't change the fact that you still have the right to use those tools. This is true even when the manufacturer olf a tool adds a feature you don't like. > Because in many cases the user has explicitly agreed certain terms for accessing that content? So what? If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. Obviously. And just to be clear, this is the situation in many cases where people have been upset by these changes. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Sure it is, if the tool is actively promoting something that will interfere with a lawful contract with another party. The law often recognises this problem explicitly, in many jurisdictions. (If you weren't aware of this, you might like to look up "tortious intereference" as a starting point.) Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party. They cease to be unrelated when their actions interfere with the first two parties in a way that harms one of them.