6 ms·

I 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 d

I 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 ago
They 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    This is an argument against DRM.
    - robmcm 13y ago
      You don't want to view this content?
      - chriswarbo 13y ago
        Not 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 ago
    No, 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.
    - robmcm 13y ago
      The BBC fights hard enough to win the rights to show this content, if they didn't the content owners would go to the other channels, Sky, ITV, Channel 4, 5 or even create their own distro like HBO. People, the majority of people don't know what DRM is, they don't care, they just want to watch content. One of the biggest problems in tech and forums like these is that everyone thinks they are so much more significant than they are, they don't realise they are such a tiny minority of the consumer spectrum.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        BBC as a distributor still has way more influence than a single individual. By rejecting DRMed content they'll send a strong message to the publishers. It works in other cases, so I see why it can't work with video as well.
        robmcm 13y ago
        Doesn't appear like they do have influence http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c
        shmerl 13y ago
        It only says that they "don't feel the requirement will change". It says nothing about their potential influence. I'd say they are just chickening and don't have guts to stand up against crazy Lysenkoist publishers which insist on DRM. It doesn't mean they can't - they just don't want to. That was the whole point. As long as distributors would continue cowardly proliferating DRM, the situation will remain as is.
fafner 13y ago
They don't need DRM. DRM does not work. Just go to pirate bay and you'll find every TV series, movie (with DVD/BluRay/Stream release), album immediately after their release. They think they need DRM. But in reality they don't. It doesn't stop piracy at all. It's a burden only to their legal customers and not to the pirates. It is all about easy and affordable access. If a company insists on using DRM then they should simply create their own proprietary plugin like Flash. But there is absolutely no reason for us to destroy the open web and make it rely on proprietary binary modules.
- desireco42 13y ago
  And I agree with you completely. But they believe that they need it and will not release content otherwise.
  - surge 13y ago
    Then they can keep it and they won't get my money, and everyone will just end up pirating it anyway. You don't combat piracy by locking it down and making a pain to access your content, you compete/combat piracy by making sure its always easier and more convenient to obtain your content legitimately, not punish those that are legit for the few that will go pirate it anyway. As long as I can purchase a song for $1 DRM free and have it in 5 seconds at a high quality from iTunes or Amazon, I won't ever be tempted to find a torrent for it, even if its free. DRM creates artificial scarcity, and scarcity breeds a black market. Those black markets may always exist, but if you make it hard enough to access your product on the device they want at the time they want, they will have more incentive to go to the black markets.
    - dclara 13y ago
      wow, what kind of insights! Agree with you.
  - fafner 13y ago
    But we don't have to bend over for their believes! They can continue using Flash or Silverlight or write their own crap plugins. Why should we destroy the open web for them?
betterunix 13y ago
"In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm" Not our problem. They can take the web or leave it. Why should we pander to them and screw up a good thing in the process?
- robmcm 13y ago
  They currently are leaving it, there is a lot of content I can't get through a web browser that I can through a native app or through a plugin player.
  - fafner 13y ago
    And that's fine. If they want DRM they should write a proprietary app or plugin. But we shouldn't turn the web into a proprietary app controlled by Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
    - robmcm 13y ago
      I would rather have a seamless experience in the browser than having to switch to native apps all the time. The web is a proprietary app controlled by the w3c, who are mainly Microsoft, Google and Apple. You can believe it's an open platform, but if that's the case it should be easy for you to block DRM ;) Good luck
      - fafner 13y ago
        So you'd rather give up on the open web and turn it into a proprietary system? Just for a seamless experience? Sorry to say this. But that's just plain stupid. The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
        robmcm 13y ago
        > The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Well lets see if DRM makes it into HTML5 then.
chriswarbo 13y ago
> 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. Is that the same kind of DRM that enabled businesses to use the printing press, radio broadcasts, TV sets, vinyl records, cassette tapes, audio CDs and MP3s?

soperj 13y ago

They 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 ago
The 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 ago
  This is an argument against DRM.
  - robmcm 13y ago
    You don't want to view this content?
    - chriswarbo 13y ago
      Not 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 ago
  No, 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.
  - robmcm 13y ago
    The BBC fights hard enough to win the rights to show this content, if they didn't the content owners would go to the other channels, Sky, ITV, Channel 4, 5 or even create their own distro like HBO. People, the majority of people don't know what DRM is, they don't care, they just want to watch content. One of the biggest problems in tech and forums like these is that everyone thinks they are so much more significant than they are, they don't realise they are such a tiny minority of the consumer spectrum.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      BBC as a distributor still has way more influence than a single individual. By rejecting DRMed content they'll send a strong message to the publishers. It works in other cases, so I see why it can't work with video as well.
      - robmcm 13y ago
        Doesn't appear like they do have influence http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/17/bbc-drm-w3c
        shmerl 13y ago
        It only says that they "don't feel the requirement will change". It says nothing about their potential influence. I'd say they are just chickening and don't have guts to stand up against crazy Lysenkoist publishers which insist on DRM. It doesn't mean they can't - they just don't want to. That was the whole point. As long as distributors would continue cowardly proliferating DRM, the situation will remain as is.

fafner 13y ago

They don't need DRM. DRM does not work. Just go to pirate bay and you'll find every TV series, movie (with DVD/BluRay/Stream release), album immediately after their release. They think they need DRM. But in reality they don't. It doesn't stop piracy at all. It's a burden only to their legal customers and not to the pirates. It is all about easy and affordable access. If a company insists on using DRM then they should simply create their own proprietary plugin like Flash. But there is absolutely no reason for us to destroy the open web and make it rely on proprietary binary modules.

desireco42 13y ago
And I agree with you completely. But they believe that they need it and will not release content otherwise.
- surge 13y ago
  Then they can keep it and they won't get my money, and everyone will just end up pirating it anyway. You don't combat piracy by locking it down and making a pain to access your content, you compete/combat piracy by making sure its always easier and more convenient to obtain your content legitimately, not punish those that are legit for the few that will go pirate it anyway. As long as I can purchase a song for $1 DRM free and have it in 5 seconds at a high quality from iTunes or Amazon, I won't ever be tempted to find a torrent for it, even if its free. DRM creates artificial scarcity, and scarcity breeds a black market. Those black markets may always exist, but if you make it hard enough to access your product on the device they want at the time they want, they will have more incentive to go to the black markets.
  - dclara 13y ago
    wow, what kind of insights! Agree with you.
- fafner 13y ago
  But we don't have to bend over for their believes! They can continue using Flash or Silverlight or write their own crap plugins. Why should we destroy the open web for them?

betterunix 13y ago

"In order for commercial companies to be able to use html5, they need some form of drm" Not our problem. They can take the web or leave it. Why should we pander to them and screw up a good thing in the process?

robmcm 13y ago
They currently are leaving it, there is a lot of content I can't get through a web browser that I can through a native app or through a plugin player.
- fafner 13y ago
  And that's fine. If they want DRM they should write a proprietary app or plugin. But we shouldn't turn the web into a proprietary app controlled by Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
  - robmcm 13y ago
    I would rather have a seamless experience in the browser than having to switch to native apps all the time. The web is a proprietary app controlled by the w3c, who are mainly Microsoft, Google and Apple. You can believe it's an open platform, but if that's the case it should be easy for you to block DRM ;) Good luck
    - fafner 13y ago
      So you'd rather give up on the open web and turn it into a proprietary system? Just for a seamless experience? Sorry to say this. But that's just plain stupid. The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple.
      - robmcm 13y ago
        > The web is not proprietary, not an app, and only to some extend controlled by the w3c, which is much more than Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Well lets see if DRM makes it into HTML5 then.

chriswarbo 13y ago

> 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. Is that the same kind of DRM that enabled businesses to use the printing press, radio broadcasts, TV sets, vinyl records, cassette tapes, audio CDs and MP3s?