3 ms·
The defendants: * Netflix * BBC * Microsoft * Google * MPAA * W3C The offenses: * Multiple monopoly holders collude to lock out the competition * Discr
by pyalot2 13y ago
The defendants:
* Netflix
* BBC
* Microsoft
* Google
* MPAA
* W3C
The offenses:
* Multiple monopoly holders collude to lock out the competition
* Discriminating against minority browser/OS platforms (such as firefox, linux, ouya etc.)
* Further fragmentation of video playback capability in an already fragmented video playback landscape
* Discriminating against small media startups
The propaganda:
* "no use of proprietary plugins" BS -> HTML DRM is based on proprietary plugins
* "more security" BS -> you still get a proprietary blob with a number of unknown security holes
* "more interoperability" BS -> HTML DRM makes videos work on less (and more selective devices) that happen to have the proprietary runtime implemented
* "more privacy" BS -> the proprietary DRM plugin is much less controllable by the user than Flash and Silverlight
- valleyer 13y ago> "more privacy" BS -> the proprietary DRM plugin is much less controllable by the user than Flash and Silverlight Please explain.
- pyalot2 13y agoflash and silverlight have gone trough an evolution where they are obligated to respect a users privacy and not to allow doing arbitrary things (like installing a rootkit on a machine) because of that. The DRM plugins being more or less directly supplied by the MPAA have no restriction or expectation whatsoever. Users can't execute arbitrary code on them (maybe) but the providers of the plugin can very well install rootkits on your machine, and they're not obligated to give a user any control over the privacy and inner working of the plugin.
- robmcm 13y agoThese "defendants" are doing so on behalf of the rights owners so they are able to show you their content. At the moment they can't, would you like to have an option to watch this content or not?