> If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? That's

> If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? That's just a sensationalistic as the headline. There isn't a single company controlling and selling these modules. There is a several of them, in open competition. The OP chose Widevine because they are easiest, but with sufficient perseverance he could probably use any of them, or at least any that distribute x86 binaries. It's damned near impossible to prevent someone from running a binary if they really want to. I also found the original article difficult to swallow. It gave very little detail - so little we have no idea what Widevine said no to. For example, was it "could you provide Widevine and loan me an engineer to help me integrate it with my browser - but I can't pay you because it's all open source". Or was it "I've got it all going, I'm willing to pay you commercial rates per licence - how can I buy licences?" It if is the former hats off to Widevine for replying at all. As it is, we only get a small part of his side of the story, no insight at all into why Widevine reacted they way they did, and a headline that's guaranteed to get clicks. Call me paranoid, but I get the feeling I'm being manipulated.