3 ms·

>The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regard

by jonahx 13y ago

>The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details. Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest >The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already. The practical effect of being able to deliver DRM'd content to every non-technical web user, without first having to get that user to download and install your proprietary software, is just massive. This is one of the biggest falloff points in the conversion funnel, so it makes this new delivery method highly attractive. As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive. The practical effects of this are far reaching imo.

jiggy2011 13y ago
It seems odd for HN to be in favour of making technology & content marginally less accessible simply to spite people. Perhaps there exists a class of people who wanted to implement DRM on all of their content but were just waiting for the W3s blessing but such a class will be extremely small. Most of the DRM you see comes from mandates from big content firms, most other people could give less of a shit.
- pgeorgi 13y ago
  DRM'd content isn't accessible and that's the entire problem. Adding a standardized hook for DRM modules to use creates the illusion that things got accessible that previously weren't. Try exercising your fair-use rights on those DRM'd bits for example.
asadotzler 13y ago
"As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive." And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug-ins go away, as they're slowly but surely doing, then native apps will be the only place to get this content. Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."
- jonahx 13y ago
  > Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." I don't cringe at that, it's just the way it is. But I promise you no-install browser delivery of DRM'd content which "just works" is very valuable to those businesses. People grab the thing within arm's reach. Sure, if there isn't anything in arm's reach a decent amount of them will still walk across the room for what they want, but I think that's besides the point.
- pdonis 13y ago
  If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." And in this scenario (i.e., the way things are now), someone like me, who doesn't give a shit about "content" but does care about the Web itself, can still avoid DRM by not installing the plugins, not using the silo'd App Stores, etc. But if my browser is the silo'd plugin/App Store, I'm SOL. That is why all this matters: it makes DRM and all of the closed source nastiness that goes with it the default, instead of something people have to choose. I think that's a very, very bad idea.
  - takluyver 13y ago
    This is unlikely to change. Firefox at least is not about to ship with DRM plugins built in, any more than it comes with Flash built in now. EME is not strictly DRM in your browser: it's a standardised interface to allow your browser to talk to DRM modules.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  > If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll > get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where > things "just work." That's entirely reasonable. Silo'd 'app stores' are where things like DRM belong, not the World Wide Web.

by jonahx 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

It seems odd for HN to be in favour of making technology & content marginally less accessible simply to spite people. Perhaps there exists a class of people who wanted to implement DRM on all of their content but were just waiting for the W3s blessing but such a class will be extremely small. Most of the DRM you see comes from mandates from big content firms, most other people could give less of a shit.

pgeorgi 13y ago
DRM'd content isn't accessible and that's the entire problem. Adding a standardized hook for DRM modules to use creates the illusion that things got accessible that previously weren't. Try exercising your fair-use rights on those DRM'd bits for example.

asadotzler 13y ago

"As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive." And the businesses (Hollywood) with the content that Web users want have done that math and decided that DRM through plug-ins and native apps is an EXCELLENT system and they're happy to keep mandating it forever. If Plug-ins go away, as they're slowly but surely doing, then native apps will be the only place to get this content. Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work."

jonahx 13y ago
> Hacker News types, myself included, will cringe at this truth, but most consumers don't give a shit about the Web. They care about the content the Web gives them. If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." I don't cringe at that, it's just the way it is. But I promise you no-install browser delivery of DRM'd content which "just works" is very valuable to those businesses. People grab the thing within arm's reach. Sure, if there isn't anything in arm's reach a decent amount of them will still walk across the room for what they want, but I think that's besides the point.
pdonis 13y ago
If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where things "just work." And in this scenario (i.e., the way things are now), someone like me, who doesn't give a shit about "content" but does care about the Web itself, can still avoid DRM by not installing the plugins, not using the silo'd App Stores, etc. But if my browser is the silo'd plugin/App Store, I'm SOL. That is why all this matters: it makes DRM and all of the closed source nastiness that goes with it the default, instead of something people have to choose. I think that's a very, very bad idea.
- takluyver 13y ago
  This is unlikely to change. Firefox at least is not about to ship with DRM plugins built in, any more than it comes with Flash built in now. EME is not strictly DRM in your browser: it's a standardised interface to allow your browser to talk to DRM modules.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
> If the Web cannot give them the content they want, they'll > get it elsewhere, probably from silo'd App Stores where > things "just work." That's entirely reasonable. Silo'd 'app stores' are where things like DRM belong, not the World Wide Web.