4 ms·

>> DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. Sometimes excluding an option creates better outcomes. Example

>> DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. Sometimes excluding an option creates better outcomes. Example: you cannot become someone's lifelong slave in America, even if you voluntarily agree to it; The agreement is not legal. Not allowing you this option also protects you: if you could do it voluntarily, you could be coerced into volunteering ("well, I see you can't pay your bank loan..."). Here's a possible scenario with DRM: If media companies can easily DRM video on the web, they will. Soon nearly all video on the web will have it. Goodbye, video options. Also, new browsers who can't make the business agreements to use the DRM will effectively not support video on the web. Which means nobody will use them. Goodbye, browser options. Cutting off the DRM option preserves video and browser options. I say we voluntarily give up the possibility of DRM to preserve other possibilities. >> Don't like it? Don't use it. Exactly the message I'd give to media companies concerning the open web.

Erwin 13y ago
There are already DRM plugins, such as http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html Why aren't all videos on the Internet already protected by it? Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones? Here's an alternative scenario: widespread protection of content rights leads to a shift of entertainment programming to the web and a revitalization of the market. Hundreds of small produces, previously unable to deliver content because of crippling piracy are able to monetize production beyond hoping enough people click on ads. Any production company will be able to produce a cheap or free pilot and be able to sell the next season for $5, delivered safely worldwide. Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment. A "long tail effect" of TV programming, much like Kindle, means large amounts of old esoteric become available on the Internet. Someone scouring Pirate Bay for some obscure old movie or TV show will now be able to easily get it from the rightful content owner.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  > Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones? Because, as I've explained elsewhere on this thread, DRM is inimical to the stated goals of the W3C. They shouldn't be in the business of standardising DRM interfaces, they should be actively opposing DRM. > widespread protection of content rights Why do you suppose that the EME proposal will lead to that? Web DRM is already widespread. Are you suggesting that EME will lead to DRM plugins becoming available for non-mainstream OSs like Linux? There's no evidence to back you up there, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. > Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment. DRM does not provide that.

Erwin 13y ago

There are already DRM plugins, such as http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html Why aren't all videos on the Internet already protected by it? Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones? Here's an alternative scenario: widespread protection of content rights leads to a shift of entertainment programming to the web and a revitalization of the market. Hundreds of small produces, previously unable to deliver content because of crippling piracy are able to monetize production beyond hoping enough people click on ads. Any production company will be able to produce a cheap or free pilot and be able to sell the next season for $5, delivered safely worldwide. Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment. A "long tail effect" of TV programming, much like Kindle, means large amounts of old esoteric become available on the Internet. Someone scouring Pirate Bay for some obscure old movie or TV show will now be able to easily get it from the rightful content owner.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
> Why is a standardized API worse than the existing proprietary ones? Because, as I've explained elsewhere on this thread, DRM is inimical to the stated goals of the W3C. They shouldn't be in the business of standardising DRM interfaces, they should be actively opposing DRM. > widespread protection of content rights Why do you suppose that the EME proposal will lead to that? Web DRM is already widespread. Are you suggesting that EME will lead to DRM plugins becoming available for non-mainstream OSs like Linux? There's no evidence to back you up there, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. > Greater safety of IP leads to greater investment. DRM does not provide that.