8 ms·
Flash and Silverlight are dying anyway. So it's up to the movie industry and not up to us to bend over. And you know at least Flash was separated from the brows
by fafner 13y ago
Flash and Silverlight are dying anyway. So it's up to the movie industry and not up to us to bend over. And you know at least Flash was separated from the browser and ported to several systems. DRM in HTML5 will mean that Google, Apple, Microsoft will simply bundle their DRM modules and the free software world can fuck off. DRM in HTML5 is far worse than the status quo.
- pekk 13y agoWhatever we may WISH, Flash is still everywhere. And still necessary, for example, to play sounds across browsers
- fafner 13y agoAnd that has absolutely nothing at all to do with DRM...
- indrax 13y agoLegacy browsers sure, but deciding whether to add DRM to HTML presupposes a browser that plays sound according to the standard.
- fuzzix 13y agoIndeed, Ireland's Revenue service has a flash "application" to manage your requests.
- desireco42 13y agoI don't share completely your assertions. In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm. This is just enabling them to do business. I believe that free and open, given some semblance of equal playing field will always win. Just to be clear, if they came and say, no drm in html, I would stand behind that as well. I just accept their judgement that this was necessary at the moment for things to work. I don't think only my view is right, so, I might be wrong here, but this is what I believe.
- soperj 13y agoThey don't really. Any stream can be captured. So if I can play the audio or video, I can capture it in a format that I can share, drm just makes it a little harder.
- shmerl 13y ago> In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm This is false. Those companies can use the HTML without DRM with the same success. No company ever needs any DRM.
- robmcm 13y agoThe BBC can not show the majority of their content on the iPlayer because the rights owners won't let them without DRM. The BBC needs DRM to be able to give us that content.
- 4ad 13y agoThis is an argument against DRM.
- robmcm 13y agoYou don't want to view this content?
- chriswarbo 13y agoNot if the price is so high. Just because advertising spends all day every day telling us that we can't live without something, doesn't make it true. In fact, my usual opinion is that the better the advertising, the less I trust what it says.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y agoNo, that's completely the wrong way around. The rights owners could not sell anything to the BBC if the BBC were to simply refuse to buy anything they can not publish without DRM, and not selling anything is not a particularly good business model in most cases. "The rights owners" are in a market, and if the market simply refused to buy broken products, they would have to either deliver a non-broken product or go bankrupt, there is no way in which they could force people to buy broken products in order to sustain them.
- stormbrew 13y ago> And you know at least Flash was separated from the browser and ported to several systems It really is astounding, and bears so much emphasis, that the proposed DRM module system is actually worse than Flash.