Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw...
by pvg on Saturday July 08, 2017 @07:02AM
(#14724980)
it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_
That ship has long, long sailed and, despite all predictions to the contrary, has actually been pretty good for users. Again, it's you who suggested everyone should stop and shittify the existing user experience that most people like. That's neither realistic nor constructive.
Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw...
by librarian42 on Saturday July 08, 2017 @08:00AM
(#14725104)
Earlier this year I downloaded a season of a TV show I wanted to catch up on, into Google Play on my tablet. A few weeks later I was on a plane, and finally had a chance to watch them. Google Play had blithely decided to save space (possibly prompted by the OS) and had removed my downloads.
If they weren't DRMed I would have just downloaded them into space I control and there would have been none of this "oh he's not interested" BS guessing.
I deal with this kind of bovine exhaust regularly.
So, hell, no, DRM has NOT IN ANY WAY been good for me. ANYTHING that makes DRM less viable is an absolute good. Period.
why can't DRM'ed video be difficult and unpleasant, but DRM-free videos be made much easier to implement, and have smooth experience for end users?
Why is DRM-free a non-starter? The whole point i wanted to make is that by making DRM'ed video easier to deploy (and consume), it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_. Why are standards bodies putting in standards that consumers wouldn't ordinarily chooses, and is only meant to appease businesses? Why couldn't they be more socially oriented, such that anti-consumer mechanisms aren't added to an open standard?
Imagine if it weren't DRM, but anti-adblocking? What if the web standards bodies were attempting to prevent adblocking in a browser, in such a way that to be a compliant browser, you can't possibly intercept content? How is that any different to this DRM standard?