Re:YouTube Ditches Flash, and It Hardly Matters
by AnkhMorporkian on Saturday February 07, 2015 @04:42AM
(#9013566)
No user is being forced into using this. I haven't really followed this argument from the beginning. Philosophically I despise DRM, but pragmatically as long as it isn't forced on users as the only option, then I don't see any issue with an extension having that option being available.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:YouTube Ditches Flash, and It Hardly Matters
by FeeTinesAMady on Saturday February 07, 2015 @07:16AM
(#9013758)
It will be forced on the users, though. If it becomes widespread, the choices are to support DRM or be locked out of the web.
Re:YouTube Ditches Flash, and It Hardly Matters
by AnkhMorporkian on Saturday February 07, 2015 @02:14PM
(#9014974)
> If it becomes widespread, the choices are to support DRM or be locked out of the web.
Or use a free and open source browser that doesn't implement it. If this is something people want to take a principled stance against, those browsers will doubtlessly continue to exist.
Unless you're referring the content access. That's a general trend with technology that likely won't be stopped. If you choose not to use certain technologies, it's unsurprising that you won't be granted access to certain things.
Re:YouTube Ditches Flash, and It Hardly Matters
by nsgi on Saturday February 07, 2015 @10:44AM
(#9014257)
Not being able to play protected content (which you couldn't in the first place without installing Flash or another proprietary plugin) is a far cry from being locked out of the web.
Re:YouTube Ditches Flash, and It Hardly Matters
by pdkl95 on Saturday February 07, 2015 @08:21AM
(#9013867)
No user (statistically speaking) even knows what EME is nor what EME (and DRM in general) implies. It says a lot about the morals and intentions of an industry when they are so quick to exploit that ignorance.