4 ms·

Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on your website. They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.

kunai 13y ago
That's extremely narrow-minded. First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like Firefox or Chromium won't be able to view any sites that push DRM at their will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't only affect web developers, it affects users, and the fact that you can't see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be honest. Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML, CSS, and JavaScript -- have been open, and they should stay open. Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web too, not just the big organizations. And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with recent Google Chrome dev builds.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Maybe that's why is Google Chrome installer more complicated than some rootkits.
betterunix 13y ago
This is kind of like saying, "The DVD CSS system is fine! You are not forced to use this DRM when you make a video DVD!" Why should the users be forced to deal with more of this nonsense? The issue is not about websites it is about us. I do not want DRM on my computer, and I do not want to be excluded from the web as a result of that choice.
josephlord 13y ago
And equally you can use it even if it isn't in the standard.
mikeash 13y ago
They are not making anyone use DRM against their will yet. And then one day there's a government form you have to fill out, or a training video you have to watch, and it's behind some crazy DRM solution that the makers thought would be good to use, which was accepted because it's "standard".
jongraehl 13y ago
As long as people link to things that work on their browser, you are wrong.

kunai 13y ago

That's extremely narrow-minded. First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like Firefox or Chromium won't be able to view any sites that push DRM at their will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't only affect web developers, it affects users, and the fact that you can't see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be honest. Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML, CSS, and JavaScript -- have been open, and they should stay open. Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web too, not just the big organizations. And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.

mwcampbell 13y ago
Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with recent Google Chrome dev builds.
- acqq 13y ago
  Maybe that's why is Google Chrome installer more complicated than some rootkits.

betterunix 13y ago

This is kind of like saying, "The DVD CSS system is fine! You are not forced to use this DRM when you make a video DVD!" Why should the users be forced to deal with more of this nonsense? The issue is not about websites it is about us. I do not want DRM on my computer, and I do not want to be excluded from the web as a result of that choice.

josephlord 13y ago

And equally you can use it even if it isn't in the standard.

mikeash 13y ago

They are not making anyone use DRM against their will yet. And then one day there's a government form you have to fill out, or a training video you have to watch, and it's behind some crazy DRM solution that the makers thought would be good to use, which was accepted because it's "standard".

jongraehl 13y ago

As long as people link to things that work on their browser, you are wrong.