News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support DRM. Parent comment

Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by aragot on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:08AM (#7749474)
We're rather talking about Youtube going under DRM than Netflix.

Youtube without DRM was an advantage for a couple of hackers: They could download vids for offline viewing (iPod/iPad and p2p-sharing after takedown).

Youtube with DRM could change the game. The impact of a movie being pirated on Youtube is much more contained if users can't download it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by icebraining on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:27AM (#7749590)
But they will. If the video player can decrypt the content, so can any youtube downloader transparently for the user.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by jiggy2011 on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:18AM (#7749527)
Adding DRM to youtube simply doesn't make sense to me. The majority of content is added to youtube because the publisher wants people to view it and share it as much as possible. They aren't monetising the content directly.

It's really only big media companies that are in the weird position of wanting many people to view their content but only under specific constraints.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to sup... by icebraining on Thursday May 15, 2014 @10:25AM (#7749577)
Some videos on Youtube are already using DRM, in the form of RTMPE.
[ Parent | on HN ]