5 ms·

To be fair, even if there wasn't a DRM-standard, he still wouldn't be able to build his application, because there would still be DRM.

Simple_Guy 8y ago
that's the important point. DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.
- chii 8y ago
  While that's true at the moment, I had hoped that the web being such a big market, it would entice content producers to deploy without DRM for fear of losing market share to other content providers who do. But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
  - Simple_Guy 8y ago
    There are still plenty of providers who don't use DRM. You just want the DRM users content but you want it without DRM. So what really happened is the content producers enticed the users into DRM with their content. It's the other way around, and the consumers voted with their wallet (and clicks)
  - lugg 8y ago
    How did it make it into the standard? And why would anyone follow this standard?
- tveita 8y ago
  > DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. It's just what big media has happened to get away with. If they found themselves without a way for their paying customers to access their content via DRM, they'd drop the requirement on the spot, with little to no financial impact except for DRM scheme licensing fees.
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    They really wouldn't. They'd just move into proprietary hardware. Several of them already have. Most studios really wouldn't find blocking all PC access to their content to materially affect them.
kibwen 8y ago
Hear hear. The parent commenter's I-told-you-so attitude frustrates me because it completely misses the point: Google de-facto controls the web, and the W3C is essentially irrelevant. Trying to suggest that the W3C's opposition would have stopped any of this is completely naive, and only serves to shift the blame.
- PunksATawnyFill 8y ago
  Yeah, LET'S GIVE UP.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

Simple_Guy 8y ago

that's the important point. DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. there's no getting around it. if you want it you have to play by their rules.

chii 8y ago
While that's true at the moment, I had hoped that the web being such a big market, it would entice content producers to deploy without DRM for fear of losing market share to other content providers who do. But with the introduction of DRM into the standard, this is no longer possible.
- Simple_Guy 8y ago
  There are still plenty of providers who don't use DRM. You just want the DRM users content but you want it without DRM. So what really happened is the content producers enticed the users into DRM with their content. It's the other way around, and the consumers voted with their wallet (and clicks)
- lugg 8y ago
  How did it make it into the standard? And why would anyone follow this standard?
tveita 8y ago
> DRM is the price one must pay to consume BIG MEDIA content. It's just what big media has happened to get away with. If they found themselves without a way for their paying customers to access their content via DRM, they'd drop the requirement on the spot, with little to no financial impact except for DRM scheme licensing fees.
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  They really wouldn't. They'd just move into proprietary hardware. Several of them already have. Most studios really wouldn't find blocking all PC access to their content to materially affect them.

kibwen 8y ago

Hear hear. The parent commenter's I-told-you-so attitude frustrates me because it completely misses the point: Google de-facto controls the web, and the W3C is essentially irrelevant. Trying to suggest that the W3C's opposition would have stopped any of this is completely naive, and only serves to shift the blame.

PunksATawnyFill 8y ago
Yeah, LET'S GIVE UP.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]