Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • peppepz
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Well, if that can make Netflix available on Linux, I suppose it's a good thing...
    No, it won't... this will make Netflix available on Android, possibly only on unrooted devices. By balkanizing Linux even more, this will make the chances of getting supported web video on Linux even more remote.

    What's worse, this standard will let content providers restrict the usage of *any* portion of a web page, not only video. This will allow the EME proposers to pay web site owners to make their content only accessible through their proprietary browser, making profits by spying the user's habits through the browser itself and selling the data to advertisers. Once web sites start making money from this scheme, thousands of them will embrace EMEs and therefore will no longer be viewable by open source browsers.

    It can't get worse than this. It's like a zombie but omnipotent Flash encrusted deep into the HTML standard that we'll never get rid of.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    Fuck that. Games cost millions of dollars to make, as do movies. TV shows can also be quite expensive. Music isn't free to record. There is value in that if everyone's lazy freeloading worthless ass doesn't pay for it, _it won't get fucking made in the first place_. There is no need for value-add to "pay for this or just don't consume it." There's only assholes who steal other people's hard work and pretend they have a God-given right to consume whatever media whenever they want even if it cost 200 people 3 years of their lives to make. The content has value - either you want to consume it and you pay the asked-for price or you don't pay and then you live your life without ever experiencing the content just like millions upon millions of other people manage to do just fine. Piracy is purely the domain of self-entitled douchebags who want things they haven't earned or worked for. DRM might not be the answer, but "add more value to an $80,000,000 title so I won't freeload" is fucking moronic.
    Everything costs effort and can be expressed in money equivalent!
    The point is how to monetize it properly. Making everyone pay just for copies of DRMed crap is wrong.

    Now, cough out $3,000,000,000 for your DRMed copy of Linux kernel or you are douchebag.

    LMAO "hard work" - every work is hard. The difference is, if you ain't popular and unique, your "hard work" does not interest ANYONE, especially if you restrict it yourself how to distribute it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serge
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Don't want the DRM connected with services like Netflix? Simple, don't use those services. Don't want your government to spy on you? What to do, not use the government?
    I don't think the two issues are that different. Governments can be changed. I am asking why we don't approach corporate encroachment into our lives the same way.

    Leave a comment:


  • 89c51
    replied
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    Fuck that. Games cost millions of dollars to make, as do movies. TV shows can also be quite expensive. Music isn't free to record. There is value in that if everyone's lazy freeloading worthless ass doesn't pay for it, _it won't get fucking made in the first place_. There is no need for value-add to "pay for this or just don't consume it." There's only assholes who steal other people's hard work and pretend they have a God-given right to consume whatever media whenever they want even if it cost 200 people 3 years of their lives to make. The content has value - either you want to consume it and you pay the asked-for price or you don't pay and then you live your life without ever experiencing the content just like millions upon millions of other people manage to do just fine. Piracy is purely the domain of self-entitled douchebags who want things they haven't earned or worked for. DRM might not be the answer, but "add more value to an $80,000,000 title so I won't freeload" is fucking moronic.
    Value as in being something that will generate money on itself (since its easy to copy/share). It has cost (ie 80.000.000mil title, studio time etc), and it also has artistic/academic/whatever value. But like it or not thats the case. People will not pay for content on itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kivada
    replied
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    Fuck that. Games cost millions of dollars to make, as do movies. TV shows can also be quite expensive. Music isn't free to record. There is value in that if everyone's lazy freeloading worthless ass doesn't pay for it, _it won't get fucking made in the first place_. There is no need for value-add to "pay for this or just don't consume it." There's only assholes who steal other people's hard work and pretend they have a God-given right to consume whatever media whenever they want even if it cost 200 people 3 years of their lives to make. The content has value - either you want to consume it and you pay the asked-for price or you don't pay and then you live your life without ever experiencing the content just like millions upon millions of other people manage to do just fine. Piracy is purely the domain of self-entitled douchebags who want things they haven't earned or worked for. DRM might not be the answer, but "add more value to an $80,000,000 title so I won't freeload" is fucking moronic.
    You are an idiot. All of these content types existed before there was a profit motive to make them. If a musician wants to make money they need to go on tour and play. Their recordings should only be used as a crowd builder and as such given away.

    Movies and TV are needlessly expensive since everyone involved thinks their time is somehow worth $100k per minute.

    Games are also needlessly expensive, I've found more enjoyment in sub $20 games made by a team of 5 people or less and way under a million dollars in development then I have in the vast majority of "AAA" titles that are priced at $50~70 and require you to pay another $5~10 every few months for minor DLC that should have just been part of the actual game.

    To top it all off, all of these twits want to make it harder for the paying customer to actually use what they've paid for. They've fought for the ability ti twist and mangle the rules that define the differences between owning something and simply licensing it so that they can claim that the paying customer has a license to their product, but the company is not liable when said product is defective by design.

    Leave a comment:


  • startzz
    replied
    Well, thats one of the biggest problems - when you want to buy some software or a game, you absolutely dont know what are you buying, not to mention some facts, that most games and many software doesnt have demo versions, and even demo versions can differ from full products, i.e. performance, plus you can buy some shitty game like that new simcity from shitty company like ea gamez, which likes to leave games unfixed even with critical bugs. So i fully understand piracy, plus its not preventing other people to buy those products.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dnyarri
    replied
    I think this is bad news for the Web.

    First I'd like to point out, that EME only standardizes API for Content Decryption Module (CDM), which is NOT standardized by W3C[source]. So unless someone provides CDM for Linux that Hollywood trusts, you wont be able to use Netflix on Linux conveniently (without Wine). Voddler says it openly here that some content companies don't trust Linux and thus haven't given them rights to show films on Linux. Would they trust Linux now? Even if they trusted, would they work on Firefox and Chromium or only on proprietary Chrome? And the CDMs be maintained and tested on Linux actively?

    So how would this draft advance pluginless web? CDM is much like, if not completely like plugins today. Would CDMs that work on Linux be maintained and tested on Linux actively or will they be abandonded like Adobe Flash (on Linux)? I think that EME only makes situation worse since it actually encourages usage of proprietary plugins (which CDMs are).

    Also, Web does NOT need Big Media ? Big Media needs the Web. Please read more from here. Big Content companies already provide music without DRM. If they don't provide their content to the Web, they will start losing money.

    I think it would be better that Netflix and others would stop using DRM or just start using Adoble Flash. Even though it's proprietary plugin, it's better alternative than bringing standards to HTML5 that are threat to interoperability and openess of the Web

    I hope this EME draft doesn't go any further.

    Leave a comment:


  • elanthis
    replied
    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
    No. And i really understand people that want to "protect" their creations and get money from them. But content (be it games, movies, music, text etc) has no value on itself since it can be copied and shared easily. If you want to make money you have to add something to your content that will make it desirable for someone to pay for it. In some cases this is easy in others its not.
    Fuck that. Games cost millions of dollars to make, as do movies. TV shows can also be quite expensive. Music isn't free to record. There is value in that if everyone's lazy freeloading worthless ass doesn't pay for it, _it won't get fucking made in the first place_. There is no need for value-add to "pay for this or just don't consume it." There's only assholes who steal other people's hard work and pretend they have a God-given right to consume whatever media whenever they want even if it cost 200 people 3 years of their lives to make. The content has value - either you want to consume it and you pay the asked-for price or you don't pay and then you live your life without ever experiencing the content just like millions upon millions of other people manage to do just fine. Piracy is purely the domain of self-entitled douchebags who want things they haven't earned or worked for. DRM might not be the answer, but "add more value to an $80,000,000 title so I won't freeload" is fucking moronic.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    I start to dislike google more and more. First, they essentially kill-off youtube by their implementation of DRM regional censorship, then they offer payed channels boosting chance video becomes DRMed/payed even more. Now they lobby DRM extensions, standing on same line as microsoft. :/

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by Serge View Post
    Why is it a given that there won't be an internet without DRM? I think RMS and supporters of his argument make a very good point when they argue that standardizing DRM encourages it to spread. I don't understand why we are supposed to take it as a given that the internet must have DRM.
    Pretty easy: The Internet has already DRM in form of Flash or Silverlight. The content providers demand DRM. So you have either the chance to standardize DRM and make it at least accessible to all OSes or the content providers will stick with the existing solutions, ruling out some OSes (Silverlight) or using dead technology (Flash). Or they come up with their own proprietary clients, of course only for the OSes with the largest marketshare.

    Why is it such a fad for everyone with an internet connection to write against national governments' attempts at increasing their involvement in internet governance, but anytime someone argues against corporate encroachment into the same, they are labeled as "unrealistic" and "out of touch with reality"?
    Don't want the DRM connected with services like Netflix? Simple, don't use those services. Don't want your government to spy on you? What to do, not use the government?

    Why is it that governments = bad while corporate = good? Governments at least try to balance the needs of their people against the needs of the corporations that lobby them.
    You mean like with the background check for gun purchases in the USA, where the lobbyists prevented those checks against the will of a very large percentage of the population? That didn't work very well, I would think.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X