5 ms·

This - I wish I could up vote multiple times. Fundamentally, distributors want to be able to use DRM to protect their content. If open standards won't provide a

This - I wish I could up vote multiple times. Fundamentally, distributors want to be able to use DRM to protect their content. If open standards won't provide a way to do that, there is no surprise that they turn to Silverlight etc.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
What's the issue, then? They still find a way to distribute their content but Web Standards aren't tainted. Seems like things are working as they should.
- takluyver 14y ago
  The issue is that I need a proprietary plug-in with frequent security problems (Flash) to watch the videos. It would be better if they could deliver their content through a standardised protocol with more secure clients. On the whole, that benefit isn't worth the downsides of adding DRM provisions to an open standard. And of course, I'd prefer they could do without DRM at all, but that still seems like a pipe dream.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I'd love a youtube where I could pay a monthly subscription instead of watching annoying ads. If DRM gave me that option it'd be great. The pipe dream is working DRM. DRM is inherently a failure. Anything we can do to make it less convenient or harder to use will only convince more content providers not to use it -- especially when the inconveniences cause more normal users to complain, which can only be a good thing. Or to put it another way, why are you advocating polishing a turd so that it appears less objectionable and can be more common? It needs to be less common. Hollywood is not omnipotent. They are capable of being convinced to change their ways. Witness music DRM. Witness the broadcast flag, which was defeated but HD content continues to be distributed without it. This "we won't distribute content without DRM" is just bloviating from pompous industry executives who hope you won't call their bluff. They need to be called on it far more often.
- jpalomaki 14y ago
  Problem is that those vendors offering the proprietary solutions may not have interest in offering their solution for all platforms. Let's take Flash as an example. I remember days from the past when I was happily watching MythTV recordings from my Nokia Internet Tablet. The tablet had no problems playing the content, since I was able to use software optimized for the tablet. Using the same hardware to watch some Flash content was painful. Flash implementation was not nearly as good as the video player that was able to utilize the platforms hardware capabilities. Open standards make it possible for companies like Nokia, Blackberry and Canonical to implement the video players themselves. They don't need to rely on Microsoft or Adobe to provide support for their platforms.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    This just provides a way for a source (Netflix, BBC) to talk to a DRM component that lives elsewhere in the operating system. Increasingly we're going to see a requirement that the DRM is implemented in hardware. So the same problem exists, except worse. How is Canonical going to implement DRM in their open source OS? How is anyone outside of a few big companies (Microsoft, Apple, Samsung) going to meet the hardware DRM requirement?

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

What's the issue, then? They still find a way to distribute their content but Web Standards aren't tainted. Seems like things are working as they should.

takluyver 14y ago
The issue is that I need a proprietary plug-in with frequent security problems (Flash) to watch the videos. It would be better if they could deliver their content through a standardised protocol with more secure clients. On the whole, that benefit isn't worth the downsides of adding DRM provisions to an open standard. And of course, I'd prefer they could do without DRM at all, but that still seems like a pipe dream.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I'd love a youtube where I could pay a monthly subscription instead of watching annoying ads. If DRM gave me that option it'd be great. The pipe dream is working DRM. DRM is inherently a failure. Anything we can do to make it less convenient or harder to use will only convince more content providers not to use it -- especially when the inconveniences cause more normal users to complain, which can only be a good thing. Or to put it another way, why are you advocating polishing a turd so that it appears less objectionable and can be more common? It needs to be less common. Hollywood is not omnipotent. They are capable of being convinced to change their ways. Witness music DRM. Witness the broadcast flag, which was defeated but HD content continues to be distributed without it. This "we won't distribute content without DRM" is just bloviating from pompous industry executives who hope you won't call their bluff. They need to be called on it far more often.
jpalomaki 14y ago
Problem is that those vendors offering the proprietary solutions may not have interest in offering their solution for all platforms. Let's take Flash as an example. I remember days from the past when I was happily watching MythTV recordings from my Nokia Internet Tablet. The tablet had no problems playing the content, since I was able to use software optimized for the tablet. Using the same hardware to watch some Flash content was painful. Flash implementation was not nearly as good as the video player that was able to utilize the platforms hardware capabilities. Open standards make it possible for companies like Nokia, Blackberry and Canonical to implement the video players themselves. They don't need to rely on Microsoft or Adobe to provide support for their platforms.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  This just provides a way for a source (Netflix, BBC) to talk to a DRM component that lives elsewhere in the operating system. Increasingly we're going to see a requirement that the DRM is implemented in hardware. So the same problem exists, except worse. How is Canonical going to implement DRM in their open source OS? How is anyone outside of a few big companies (Microsoft, Apple, Samsung) going to meet the hardware DRM requirement?