3 ms·

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 conte

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.