4 ms·
This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they fin
by cantankerous 13y ago
This. While I don't like DRM, I feel like this boxing out of DRM-using media companies is pointless. Consumers continue to subscribe to media sources they find convenient and many use DRM. This may not last forever, but I'm inclined to vote bring all these people into the fold on the modern web so it's a place for everyone. Nobody's forcing anybody to use DRM.
- kevingadd 13y agoI think the point is more nuanced than that. It's not that DRM doesn't belong on the web, but it doesn't belong as an integral part of the web and web components. There are already well-specified mechanisms like <object> and NPAPI/ActiveX plugins that you can use right now to ship encrypted video if you want. The cost of every single feature added to the Standard Web is tremendous and we pay that cost forever. By that standard alone, adding a feature like DRM video to serve the demands of an enormous, incredibly powerful, incredibly rich lobby is ridiculous. There are simply much better problems to be solved with less downsides. So, to try and rephrase it: The question here isn't whether these people should be 'brought into the fold' on the modern web; DRM is intrinsically at odds with the modern web (and the web we've had before), both in concrete purpose and in the more nebulous philosophical ways. A major strength of the web has always been its ability to open doors and put powerful tools in the hands of everyone, and encrypted/protected video limited to certain platforms/devices just fundamentally runs counter to all of that.