Amid Unprecedented Controversy, W3C Greenlights DRM for the Web - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;52452594]Can't wait until I have to crack my fucking browser just to watch youtube videos without ads :/[/QUOTE] I love when I'm grooving the fuck out and then some of that fucking terrible "universitary country" music ads play mid-album, and absolutely destroy the rythm I had going. I am willing to pay for as long as you give me a good service that doesn't restrict how I consume my media. The current youtube ad model is worse than ever, and services like Spotify are restrictive af. Also, if these shitheads couldn't fucking maintain a simple banner ad service without enduser browsers getting rekt what fucking guarantees me their magic blackbox is going to be any safer? [editline]10th July 2017[/editline] This gets me riled the fuck up to no end, they're making piracy more and more attractive each and every day. These bastards can't even make the claim that their legit content is safer than pirated ones. Great job.

[QUOTE=millan;52452685]And less utilities for anticompetitive, anticonsumerist, al antidemocratic meddling[/QUOTE] Any platform is going to become that way when it starts becoming really popular.

The sad part is, most of this is going to go off without a hitch. Popular browsers will have to have this DRM support baked in lest they fall behind because your average joe won't be able to watch his funny Youtube video. Your average joe also doesn't have extensions or use adblock, so the only way they'll notice a difference is if they're somehow not using the latest version of their browser once this stuff starts rolling out. Yes, there will be a decent sized group of people (myself included) calling out all the bullshit on this, but as long as your average user isn't affected and doesn't notice it, they can just push it through while forcing us to just "deal with it."

[QUOTE=eirexe;52452050]DRM was a mistake.[/QUOTE] DRM wasn't. Where it's gone over the past years most definitely was.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52453348]DRM wasn't. Where it's gone over the past years most definitely was.[/QUOTE] Like it wasn't inevitable it would go down that route from the very beginning.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52453348]DRM wasn't. Where it's gone over the past years most definitely was.[/QUOTE] DRM is flawed by its very nature. It's impossible to prevent access to pirates without the occasional hiccup that affects a legitimate user. And if a legitimate user cannot access their content because of your antipiracy measures then they are getting punished for buying your content. And if you are punishing legitimate users then your approach is flawed at best because it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52453348]DRM wasn't. Where it's gone over the past years most definitely was.[/QUOTE] Drm is stupid and pointless, no one should control my access to my content for arbitrary reasons.

Not to mention that the way that some DRM hooked themselves into your OS, it helped some people who make Malware get better at placing it into your computer.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52453391]DRM is flawed by its very nature. It's impossible to prevent access to pirates without the occasional hiccup that affects a legitimate user. And if a legitimate user cannot access their content because of your antipiracy measures then they are getting punished for buying your content. And if you are punishing legitimate users then your approach is flawed at best because it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to.[/QUOTE] I don't have a problem with a store mildly inconveniencing me by putting expensive items in anti-theft packaging or behind locked glass. Rarely, it's an annoyance when I can't find an employee to help me, but I understand their motivation for having that level of security. By your logic that's 'flawed by its very nature' because it's 'punishing legitimate users', yet it's common practice and people accept it. In any other context, rational people can accept a mild inconvenience or small possibility of having an issue for the sake of the business, provided the entire experience isn't excessively frustrating. It's an unrealistic standard to hold that a company can never, ever take any measures to secure their product if it has the slightest impact on legitimate users. Bad DRM like Starforce is inexcusable, but if DRM is unobtrusive and only rarely affects legitimate users then it seems extremely unreasonable to say that a customer's 0.01% chance of having an issue outweighs the company's right to control their product.

So how is this a problem? besides it being slightly less easy to download a Netflix/Youtube video?

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52452764]Mozilla hasn't given a shit about the free web since they 'reorganized' their leadership.[/QUOTE] Actually it was the users who decided Netflix was more important than the free web.

[QUOTE=FlamingSpaz;52453679]Actually it was the users who decided Netflix was more important than the free web.[/QUOTE] I don't remember being asked, source on that claim.

[QUOTE=taipan;52453666]So how is this a problem? besides it being slightly less easy to download a Netflix/Youtube video?[/QUOTE] That we may not be able to see the content we want to. Some of the things you're currently watching might be deemed inappropriate and be completely shut off. You'll be fed ads that last longer than the video you'll be trying to watch. And, yes, I imagine that we even risk someone using this to push an agenda, whatever it might be. Worst part, however, is the doors this open. Where does it stop? How long before someone decides that you can only see content from your own country (which means being robbed of an immense amount of news from across the world)? How long before you're fed ads that last several minutes apiece, with no way to block them or avoid them? And that's not even touching the issues of security and privacy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52453572]I don't have a problem with a store mildly inconveniencing me by putting expensive items in anti-theft packaging or behind locked glass. Rarely, it's an annoyance when I can't find an employee to help me, but I understand their motivation for having that level of security. By your logic that's 'flawed by its very nature' because it's 'punishing legitimate users', yet it's common practice and people accept it.[/QUOTE] Not a comparable situation. Your example is only valid BEFORE you buy the item. DRM is an issue after you have already paid for it.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52453691]That we may not be able to see the content we want to. Some of the things you're currently watching might be deemed inappropriate and be completely shut off. You'll be fed ads that last longer than the video you'll be trying to watch. And, yes, I imagine that we even risk someone using this to push an agenda, whatever it might be. Worst part, however, is the doors this open. Where does it stop? How long before someone decides that you can only see content from your own country (which means being robbed of an immense amount of news from across the world)? How long before you're fed ads that last several minutes apiece, with no way to block them or avoid them? And that's not even touching the issues of security and privacy.[/QUOTE] we black mirror now.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52453683]I don't remember being asked, source on that claim.[/QUOTE] To have influence on the W3C, a browser needs to have market share. Mozilla implemented EME way after the other browser vendors because they were bleeding users who just wanted to watch Netflix/Amazon/whatever and didn't care about how it worked. When the only other competition is Google and Microsoft, who are ready to kill off the web in favour of their own platforms they make money off, the DRM battle becomes a hill not worth dying on. I don't expect anything to change at this point. Google and Microsoft will profit from this since they conveniently have their [url=http://www.widevine.com/]own[/url] [url=https://www.microsoft.com/playready/]CDMs[/url], and by using Chrome/Edge their users have signalled they don't care. Right now there's bigger battles worth fighting like the encryption stuff. No source but I work at Mozilla and know people who were involved in the EME stuff, W3C groups etc

[QUOTE=FlamingSpaz;52453761]To have influence on the W3C, a browser needs to have market share. Mozilla implemented EME way after the other browser vendors because they were bleeding users who just wanted to watch Netflix/Amazon/whatever and didn't care about how it worked. When the only other competition is Google and Microsoft, who are ready to kill off the web in favour of their own platforms they make money off, the DRM battle becomes a hill not worth dying on. I don't expect anything to change at this point. Google and Microsoft will profit from this since they conveniently have their [URL="http://www.widevine.com/"]own[/URL] [URL="https://www.microsoft.com/playready/"]CDMs[/URL], and by using Chrome/Edge their users have signalled they don't care. Right now there's bigger battles worth fighting like the encryption stuff. No source but I work at Mozilla and know people who were involved in the EME stuff, W3C groups etc[/QUOTE] I'm gonna take this as a initiative to drop anything Mozilla first-party like a hot potato ASAP and look for forks that ridicule Mozilla for such stance. [QUOTE=Alice3173;52453697]Not a comparable situation. Your example is only valid BEFORE you buy the item. DRM is an issue after you have already paid for it.[/QUOTE] DRM often means you don't own shit, you're just merely renting it for a set amount of time. It's just that the time period is sometimes unspecified, but in the end, you're not in control of it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52453572]I don't have a problem with a store mildly inconveniencing me by putting expensive items in anti-theft packaging or behind locked glass. Rarely, it's an annoyance when I can't find an employee to help me, but I understand their motivation for having that level of security. By your logic that's 'flawed by its very nature' because it's 'punishing legitimate users', yet it's common practice and people accept it. In any other context, rational people can accept a mild inconvenience or small possibility of having an issue for the sake of the business, provided the entire experience isn't excessively frustrating. It's an unrealistic standard to hold that a company can never, ever take any measures to secure their product if it has the slightest impact on legitimate users. Bad DRM like Starforce is inexcusable, but if DRM is unobtrusive and only rarely affects legitimate users then it seems extremely unreasonable to say that a customer's 0.01% chance of having an issue outweighs the company's right to control their product.[/QUOTE] It's not the same, DRM is like needing permission from the person you bought a watch from to be able to wear it, the point of DRM is to administer access to content that you already have paid for, it's not the same.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52453334]Any platform is going to become that way when it starts becoming really popular.[/QUOTE] Then we gonna do it again! Permanent revolution, dude.

As always with DRM, let them try, let them fail. As always as they try to force this shit onto us, let them be reminded that pirates are resilient and them safeguarding their content is a battle already lost.

Weren't companies like Apple and Netflix pushing for that a lot afaik?

[QUOTE=Coolboy;52456133]As always with DRM, let them try, let them fail. As always as they try to force this shit onto us, let them be reminded that pirates are resilient and them safeguarding their content is a battle already lost.[/QUOTE] The problem is that your average internet joe won't be able or have the knowledge to circumvent it. There will be an untold amount of people who will be stuck with this unless we can somehow stop it.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52453683]I don't remember being asked, source on that claim.[/QUOTE] Sadly, you are not the majority in this case. You have to remember, the majority of people who browse the web don't even know what extensions are. They don't know about things like net neutrality, the "free web", and general privacy concerns. They just want to open up a browser that works, can load Facebook/Youtube/Twitter/Netflix/Hulu without issue, and watch/read their content. This is the majority of users for most browsers, even Firefox. Hell, my father didn't even know about Firefox until someone at his job recommended it to him after he got malware on his laptop. He didn't even know that extensions or adblock were a thing until I showed him one day. I mean, the man still uses Yahoo for his search engine and email. That's the majority of users. The people who know jack shit about technology or the internet. To them, a computer is just a way to access the internet, and a web browser is a way for them to watch/read content. That's it.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;52456626]Sadly, you are not the majority in this case. You have to remember, the majority of people who browse the web don't even know what extensions are. They don't know about things like net neutrality, the "free web", and general privacy concerns. They just want to open up a browser that works, can load Facebook/Youtube/Twitter/Netflix/Hulu without issue, and watch/read their content. This is the majority of users for most browsers, even Firefox. Hell, my father didn't even know about Firefox until someone at his job recommended it to him after he got malware on his laptop. He didn't even know that extensions or adblock were a thing until I showed him one day. I mean, the man still uses Yahoo for his search engine and email. That's the majority of users. The people who know jack shit about technology or the internet. To them, a computer is just a way to access the internet, and a web browser is a way for them to watch/read content. That's it.[/QUOTE] Firefox is delaying the inevitable by trying to be Chrome 2.0 instead of curating the niche they carved out where "flexibility and the user being in charge" was main focus.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52456241]The problem is that your average internet joe won't be able or have the knowledge to circumvent it. There will be an untold amount of people who will be stuck with this unless we can somehow stop it.[/QUOTE] Your average joe won't care, because your average joe does not rip movies, your average joe gets the movies already ripped from somewhere else. No one here rips anime from crunchyroll, they get them from animeflv or whatever they use these days.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52452107]We've lived in the wild west days of the internet, but it looks like that's coming to an end.[/QUOTE] Been saying this for years. Take advantage of the internet now while places like Youtube, Google and Wiki are still around to improve yourself and your life before they're gone as we know them.

[QUOTE=Axznma;52458149]Been saying this for years. Take advantage of the internet now while places like Youtube, Google and Wiki are still around to improve yourself and your life before they're gone as we know them.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia won't, they have a compromise and have been the most neutral place on the internet ever since it was founded. the rest will be worse, yes

[QUOTE=eirexe;52458203]Wikipedia won't, they have a compromise and have been the most neutral place on the internet ever since it was founded. the rest will be worse, yes[/QUOTE] Anything politics in Wikipedia is as far from neutral as can be.

[QUOTE=eirexe;52458203]Wikipedia won't, they have a compromise and have been the most neutral place on the internet ever since it was founded. the rest will be worse, yes[/QUOTE] Laughably untrue

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52453697]Not a comparable situation. Your example is only valid BEFORE you buy the item. DRM is an issue after you have already paid for it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=eirexe;52453780]It's not the same, DRM is like needing permission from the person you bought a watch from to be able to wear it, the point of DRM is to administer access to content that you already have paid for, it's not the same.[/QUOTE] Okay, if you're saying an annoyance 30 seconds before you buy a product is okay but an annoyance 30 seconds after you buy a product is completely unacceptable, then it was a bad example. Fair enough. From my perspective that doesn't seem terribly important because it's wasting my time either way. But if people actually bought into 'anything that has a remote possibility of harming a legitimate user is bad', then gamers would have been livid about CD checks back in the 90s, Steam would have died an immediate death instead of becoming the most popular distribution/DRM platform in its industry, and anything that requires login authorization (and remembering passwords, something that has a negative impact on legitimate users every day) would be right out. All of these are standard so clearly there is some consumer tolerance for DRM. So sure, you can say DRM is 'flawed by its very nature', but it's accepted in multiple industries as a standard, so what's your point? No industry is going to listen to consumers who say 'DRM is bad' but then buy DRM-laden products and extol the virtues of particular DRM solutions that come with other benefits. If you can come up with a better solution that isn't the ineffective 'just don't use DRM and hope people don't immediately pirate en-masse', you will literally change multiple industries overnight.