6 ms·
This is just sad.
by bemeurer 8y ago
This is just sad.
- Canada 8y agoSo I take it you won't be in on their ICO presale?
- lobotryas 8y agoI dunno, sounds kind of interesting. Imagine the pain that creators feel when their images get reposted without credit or permission. Sometimes this can even lead to financial losses for the creator. A lot depends on how this is implemented, but it would be great to have more options than a watermark and low resolution as ways of protecting your work.
- RantyDave 8y agoRight. So that's a DRM argument which is a whole extra world of pain. But using blockchain? Really? Especially since DRM's of various varieties are well understood, standardised and implemented - can't they just use one of those? And... if it 'aint broke...
- davidgerard 8y ago[author here] The mooted plan is to reuse the DRM from JPEG 2000 part 8 - to generalise it to just-plain-JPEG. As I note in the piece: > I have heard of one case of someone trying to use JPEG 2000 DRM — a pornographic site selling DRMed pictures around 2009. Customers had to run a Java applet in their web browser. It didn’t work well, and was a tech support nightmare — I was told about it by one of said tech support people. The porn site gave up on this terrible idea very quickly. The Java applet company apparently went bust a few months later. JPEG 2000 has a few niche users, who are very happy with it - but they hardly ever go past JPEG 2000 Part 1, the bit that's all about better-compressed images.
- replies_to_all 8y agoReal talk, what is wrong with you HN guys? Do you really not understand this new tech to the degree you pretend to, or do you are a real argument against the use of block chains? Really, you sound like an idiot.