Re:Firefox 38 released
by acdha on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @05:35PM
(#9535080)
> That somehow making it more convenient and adding a standards-endorsed API to facilitate its activation will somehow assist in combating it, is a nonsensical proposition.
That is nonsensical but if you were to read my comment, you'll note it's not a proposition I made.
This really isn't hard:
1. Consumers are happily paying for DRMed content
2. The big media companies are not willing to consider releasing content without DRM
3. Nobody likes maintaining plugins or the lower video quality they entail
4. Apple, Google and Microsoft made it clear that they were going to solve #3 by implementing whatever Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. need to
5. The W3C and Mozilla accepted #4 and used what power they do have to push the process into a public forum. Mozilla has been particularly active to increase user awareness and make it more obvious when your actions are being restricted at a content owner's bequest.
There was no step where someone waves a magic wand and Hollywood stops demanding DRM.
With or without a W3C spec, most desktop users and nearly all mobile users were going to have a browser with DRM playback features. That means there's no step where Mozilla makes EME content harder to use and the reaction is something better than users dropping Firefox for Chrome/IE/Safari.
Again, if you care about this issue the question to focus on is how changing #1. As long as people keep paying for DRMed content, none of the other parties will have the incentive or ability to change.
That is nonsensical but if you were to read my comment, you'll note it's not a proposition I made.
This really isn't hard: 1. Consumers are happily paying for DRMed content 2. The big media companies are not willing to consider releasing content without DRM 3. Nobody likes maintaining plugins or the lower video quality they entail 4. Apple, Google and Microsoft made it clear that they were going to solve #3 by implementing whatever Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. need to 5. The W3C and Mozilla accepted #4 and used what power they do have to push the process into a public forum. Mozilla has been particularly active to increase user awareness and make it more obvious when your actions are being restricted at a content owner's bequest.
There was no step where someone waves a magic wand and Hollywood stops demanding DRM.
With or without a W3C spec, most desktop users and nearly all mobile users were going to have a browser with DRM playback features. That means there's no step where Mozilla makes EME content harder to use and the reaction is something better than users dropping Firefox for Chrome/IE/Safari.
Again, if you care about this issue the question to focus on is how changing #1. As long as people keep paying for DRMed content, none of the other parties will have the incentive or ability to change.