DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat

>>59279526
The whole argument is depressing, but it's not obviously wrong.

>another man fucking my wife is a victory for my marriage, not a defeat

>>59279526

>the author unironically believes netflix will test 'unprotected content' lmfao ...

shit article, shit internet, fuck all companies, fuck copyrights, fuck everyone .. get this shit out of my sight.

I don't want to deal with all of this. The future is dark and the internet is lost because all these money grabbing fucking kikes are all over it and all these dumbfucking facebook using masses are blindly following whatever botnet these companies are throwing at them next.

What a fucking shit world.

>>59279526
>DRM still exists
>this-is-fine.jpg

>>59279909
I wholeheartedly agree with this.

>>59279909
Yeah, that seems hard to believe. The argument mentions browsers not supporting EME as a place that only DRM-free media would be usable, but of course those browsers already exist if EME isn't a web standard.

>>59279526
> It's difficult to imagine that any content distributors that are currently distributing unprotected media are going to start using DRM merely because there's a W3C-approved framework for doing so.
I think I disagree with this. If all compliant web browsers have support for DRM, distributors such as YouTube or Vimeo could add DRM-encumbered media pretty easily. They'd know that most of their users would be able to play it without having to install browser plugins, or even noticing.

It is no different to the introduction of DRM into open television standards like DVB and ISDB.

The same arguments were put forward "if you don't have the drm people are gonna lock things up more" and "just because they can doesn't mean they will".

Where do we stand with that?
Many countries now have significant levels of encryption in broadcast television.

In Norway for example, certain television services were accessible for free using an antenna.
The same services now require a subscription and are locked down with DRM.
This even applies to programmes which were previously unencrypted --like TV2.

It isn't very hard to imagine that the same should happen with the internet.

>>59279909
All this temper tantrum just because you might have to finally pay for something?
Poorfag.

File: tmp_20749-14887505192061770277711.png (90KB, 463x522px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 463x522px

>>59281193
>internet
>pay

>>59279526
One of the nicer arguments against DRM on the standard was the use of different browsers, since every browser do things differently (ask /wdg/ ) service providers will have to consider a certain implementation as correct and browsers that don't have a big market share might not even be considered, this will have a negative impact on users, because it would force the user to use only one browser decreasing then the competition and innovation on the browser market.

>>59281193
>It is only right to pay for everything, even for the air I breathe
What manner of jewelry is this

The author is completely ignoring the web's bargaining power. Just by getting off the web the companies wanting DRM extensions would lose millions of viewers, because of the extra steps involved.
There are marketing studies over it, they'd come back begging to the web even if it doesn't do their bidding.

Allowing DRM to be standardized means it's going to spread. That's a loss if I've ever seen one.

We were better off with flash oddly enough.

>>59279526
>computers don't support "rights" but we'll try our best to break everything so that it supports them
>they don't support advertizing either but let's just complain whenever poeple block ads and act entitled like ads should exist and no one should dodge them
>I don't understand how computers work
>asdasdasdasdasdasdasd

Computers should never have gone mainstream. Personal computing was a mistake.

Hoo boy! That was a close call, I mean what with the web teetering on the edge of oblivion and all.

>>59283708
Flash discontinue was monkey paw's desire

>>59279526
> will keep the Web relevant
Companies who promote DRM make it sound like it's them who invented the Internet. "If there's no DRM, we'll go away and there will be nothing left to do". You know what, I'd rather have them fuck off to another DRMnet. They must take their shit with them and make the Web irrelevant again.

what the web really needs is a replacement of the W3C

>>59284893
i'll make the logo

>>59284977
just a logo would literally be better than what we have now
at least a logo won't shove a huge DRM penis through the web

I don't understand why they even bother implementing something like this
Do they really think it will keep people from ripping from e.g. Amazon video or Netflix? Are they mentally retarded?

File: Cuck.jpg (439KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1200x1000px

>>59279859

>>59284893
https://whatwg.org/

>>59284698
Personal computing isn't the problem, twisting the focus from work/creation to consumption is.

>>59279909
+1

>>59285142
top ceck