Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by angrow on Thursday October 03, 2013 @04:46PM
(#6491916)
I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by perrupa on Thursday October 03, 2013 @05:01PM
(#6492009)
Zynga doesn't particularly seem to care about that kind of thing and they're doing pretty ok...
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by belandrew on Friday October 04, 2013 @06:35AM
(#6494632)
Zynga only had one profitable year in 2010. They have lost $600 million since then.
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by chris_wot on Thursday October 03, 2013 @10:36PM
(#6493411)
Worst. Example. Evar.
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by tesseractive on Thursday October 03, 2013 @06:50PM
(#6492694)
They are?
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by imdsm on Friday October 04, 2013 @08:56AM
(#6495031)
The exec$ are doing ju$t fine I'm $ure
Re:W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards
by FLUX-YOU on Thursday October 03, 2013 @09:44PM
(#6493270)
I think you're proposing dire consequences where there aren't likely to be any.
Google copying Yahoo's front page code? Okay, that'll be in the news and everyone will have a good laugh.
Some Joe Schmoe Web Developer lifting CSS/HTML from an unknown client to sell to an unknown client? Eh, not so much. This probably happens often and goes undetected.