14 ms·
#CancelNetflix: Arrested Development isn't the only thing they screwed up
- ChrisAntaki 13y agoContent publishers would not allow Netflix to stream unencrypted videos.
- christianbryant 13y agoThe point is that a corporation really ought not be the one that determines things like this for something that has up to now been a fairly open standard.
- ChrisAntaki 13y agoAh, so you'd prefer that plugins continued to exist, to differentiate the open standards and the DRM?
- mwcampbell 13y agoThe DRM extensions are just as proprietary as the plugins they replace. And the Microsoft DRM extension, at least, is quite likely to go far too deep into the OS (see also http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html).
- shmerl 13y agoDon't buy content from these publishers then. They are nothing without customers. When they'll realize that having customers is better than having DRM - they will throw DRM out.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jljljl 13y agoLet's assume Netflix can't operate without some form of copy protection on their streaming videos. Can someone explain, clearly and unsensationally, why this is ok when done with plugins like Silverlight, but not ok when done using DRM in HTML5? I'm actually looking for an explanation.
- shmerl 13y agoFirstly they can operate without any DRM. Secondly DRM is never OK. The problem with putting it into the standard is in prolonging the life of this sick trend.
- calgoo 13y agoAlso, the plugin is a users choice to install. The DRM in the HTML5 specs would be deeply incorporated inside the navigators codebase. It should be a choice, not an obligation. If you are like me, and try to keep the proprietary stuff to a minimum on some of my laptops, then I would not use this version of FF/Chrome. I would have to use a forked version without the DRM specs (which i think would be a way of sticking it to the W3C).
- jljljl 13y agoThank you, this is a good explanation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]