4 ms·

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

by jshen 14y ago

shmerl 14y ago
Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good purpose to isolate DRM from the normal technologies. So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".
- jshen 14y ago
  It's unclear if the world will move towards native apps or stay on the open web. Preventing anyone from having a DRM solution for the web makes it more likely the world will move to native apps. That would be a bad outcome in my opinion. I also fail to understand your ideology. Anyone who creates content should have the ability to decide how they wish to sell and distribute that content. I think DRM is futile, but I don't think it is bad as you seem to believe.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    There are applications which are used outside the browsers. And DRM is a perfect example - DRM has no place in the open Web. I don't see a problem with pushing bad technologies off the Web (or altogether off for that matter). Good riddance! Idea here is rather straightforward. Publishers indeed have a choice to treat their users with respect, or to insult them with DRM. But we aren't talking about them making this choice - it's up to them. We are talking about W3C putting an unethical technology in a Web standard, to oblige some publishers who made that unethical choice. It's unacceptable! It's not different from saying that since malware creators want an ability to affect their users, W3C should standardize malware methods for the Web.
    - jshen 14y ago
      your ideology makes no sense to me.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        What exactly? You have hard time understanding that DRM is unethical, or that open Web doesn't need it?
        jshen 14y ago
        If I'm a musician, and I want to sell my music in a way that prevents the buyer from redistributing it, then I don't think that is unethical. I think the musician has the right to make that choice. You have a right not to buy it in that form.
        shmerl 14y ago
        Can a musician come to your house and start monitoring you to prevent redistribution? No, it's invasive and unethical to do it. It's along the lines of invasive surveillance in a totalitarian police state for the sake of "security". Treating your paying customers in such way is a gross disrespect. DRM does exactly that - it's preemptive policing which violates privacy and treats users as potential criminals by default. It's insulting and unethical to do so. I'm not even saying that it's pointless, since it doesn't prevent piracy. DRM punishes and insults paying customers who care to buy the content, and does nothing to stop illegal redistribution and doesn't affect those who don't care to buy and pirate the stuff. So what is the point in using it? To upset paying customers by limiting usability of the content and by increasing security and malware risks in shady DRM programs? Distributors should start treating users with respect if they want any respect back. And it always pays off. In general I get the feeling that actual creators (musicians, authors and etc.) don't care about all this DRM idiocy. Those who push it are publishers/distributors, who can't comprehend a simple thing - DRM has no useful application at all, all it does - it degrades the user experience and punishes paying customers.
        14y ago

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

by jshen 14y ago

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

shmerl 14y ago

Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good purpose to isolate DRM from the normal technologies. So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".

jshen 14y ago
It's unclear if the world will move towards native apps or stay on the open web. Preventing anyone from having a DRM solution for the web makes it more likely the world will move to native apps. That would be a bad outcome in my opinion. I also fail to understand your ideology. Anyone who creates content should have the ability to decide how they wish to sell and distribute that content. I think DRM is futile, but I don't think it is bad as you seem to believe.
- shmerl 14y ago
  There are applications which are used outside the browsers. And DRM is a perfect example - DRM has no place in the open Web. I don't see a problem with pushing bad technologies off the Web (or altogether off for that matter). Good riddance! Idea here is rather straightforward. Publishers indeed have a choice to treat their users with respect, or to insult them with DRM. But we aren't talking about them making this choice - it's up to them. We are talking about W3C putting an unethical technology in a Web standard, to oblige some publishers who made that unethical choice. It's unacceptable! It's not different from saying that since malware creators want an ability to affect their users, W3C should standardize malware methods for the Web.
  - jshen 14y ago
    your ideology makes no sense to me.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      What exactly? You have hard time understanding that DRM is unethical, or that open Web doesn't need it?
      - jshen 14y ago
        If I'm a musician, and I want to sell my music in a way that prevents the buyer from redistributing it, then I don't think that is unethical. I think the musician has the right to make that choice. You have a right not to buy it in that form.
        shmerl 14y ago
        Can a musician come to your house and start monitoring you to prevent redistribution? No, it's invasive and unethical to do it. It's along the lines of invasive surveillance in a totalitarian police state for the sake of "security". Treating your paying customers in such way is a gross disrespect. DRM does exactly that - it's preemptive policing which violates privacy and treats users as potential criminals by default. It's insulting and unethical to do so. I'm not even saying that it's pointless, since it doesn't prevent piracy. DRM punishes and insults paying customers who care to buy the content, and does nothing to stop illegal redistribution and doesn't affect those who don't care to buy and pirate the stuff. So what is the point in using it? To upset paying customers by limiting usability of the content and by increasing security and malware risks in shady DRM programs? Distributors should start treating users with respect if they want any respect back. And it always pays off. In general I get the feeling that actual creators (musicians, authors and etc.) don't care about all this DRM idiocy. Those who push it are publishers/distributors, who can't comprehend a simple thing - DRM has no useful application at all, all it does - it degrades the user experience and punishes paying customers.
        14y ago