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

Gabe is 100% right. Piracy is a service problem. DRM for the web already sucks ass. With software like silver light.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52460846]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.[/QUOTE] people were pissed about cd checks, cracksites made their big break bypassing exactly that kind of shit.

[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. .[/QUOTE] How is this different from what YouTube/Netflix etc has now? They already do localization, and already ban video’s the government thinks are inappropriate. They also already use their own DRM. How does this change anything? Youtube’s: “This video is not available in your country” has been there for ages, just as Netflix having a different line-up in every country. Commercials are also nothing new, why would this new DRM standard increase the amount of these? The video provider chooses the amount of commercials you see, a random DRM standard has nothing to do with this? [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52453691] 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? [/QUOTE] This again is nothing new, whole countries already ban access to certain websites (Russia, Turkey, China etc.) Hell China completely bans Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and in fact almost everything by google. How does this specific piece of DRM standardization going to cause this, when its already happening? [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52453691] And that's not even touching the issues of security and privacy. [/QUOTE] ? How are these involved? Remember that this is not DRM its just a DRM standard that you can use if you want to use DRM on your media. All big media companies already use their own proprietary DRM. W3C just made a standard for all to use. Just like HTTP is a standard for sending communications over the web and POP3 is a standard for mail. [B] Dont get me wrong, I am against all levels of DRM. But I dont get why this is so bad all of the sudden when its just a standard for something that has only proprietary systems now.[/B]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52460846]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.[/QUOTE] This is the issue. DRM that's affecting a legitimate user is going to be affecting them by that 30 seconds each and every time they go to use it, not just one time. And that's only if the DRM is functioning properly. If the DRM is not functioning properly then they are simply locked out of content they paid for. If it was a one time thing people wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss over it. But it's not. I've brought this up in the past several DRM-related threads I've posted in but an example would be a game I bought last year. I bought it not knowing it actually had DRM (I'd been mistakenly mislead to believe it was DRM-free due to a misunderstanding actually) and had the DRM completely malfunction on me. With the assistance of tech support it took me two weeks to get access to the game. In the mean time a friend of mine pirated and finished the game and had no issues whatsoever. So not only did the DRM not do its job in preventing piracy but on top of that it punished me for paying for the game by refusing to let me access the content I paid for. This is flat out unacceptable no matter how you look at it.

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;52452154]Furthermore, since it appears that DRM will be browser-based, I'd recommend looking around for some forks of both Firefox and Chrome. If the browser companies aren't going to fight this, you should try to get a fork of their browser before it's implemented.[/QUOTE] This. I recommend Waterfox, it has become amazing as of late, and EME is disabled.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52460846]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.[/QUOTE] Steam is not inherently DRM, Steam has a DRM component but it's up to the developers to use it, KSP does not need Steam to be running for example. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=taipan;52460949] ? How are these involved? Remember that this is not DRM its just a DRM standard that you can use if you want to use DRM on your media. All big media companies already use their own proprietary DRM. W3C just made a standard for all to use. Just like HTTP is a standard for sending communications over the web and POP3 is a standard for mail.[/QUOTE] They are involved, you are running software on your browser that can't be replaced because it's not standarized, with browsing if you don't like chrome you can go with firefox, when it comes to CDMs you can't go from widevine to an alternative because there are none. Standards that inherently require proprietary code to run don't have a place in the web standard because anyone is supposed to be able to implement all of it. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;52461054]This is the issue. DRM that's affecting a legitimate user is going to be affecting them by that 30 seconds each and every time they go to use it, not just one time. And that's only if the DRM is functioning properly. If the DRM is not functioning properly then they are simply locked out of content they paid for. If it was a one time thing people wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss over it. But it's not. I've brought this up in the past several DRM-related threads I've posted in but an example would be a game I bought last year. I bought it not knowing it actually had DRM (I'd been mistakenly mislead to believe it was DRM-free due to a misunderstanding actually) and had the DRM completely malfunction on me. With the assistance of tech support it took me two weeks to get access to the game. In the mean time a friend of mine pirated and finished the game and had no issues whatsoever. So not only did the DRM not do its job in preventing piracy but on top of that it punished me for paying for the game by refusing to let me access the content I paid for. This is flat out unacceptable no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] I had to crack my legit copy of GTA V because of this: [t]http://i.imgur.com/Lrqq63D.png[/t] But honestly, I think practicality is not the main reason we should be against DRM, we should be against DRM, specially in movies, because it adds artificial limitations that you shouldn't have as a paying user, when pirates get a better deal than a paying user gets is when it crosses the line.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52461054]If the DRM is not functioning properly then they are simply locked out of content they paid for. [/QUOTE] And like I said, I consider [I]that[/I] degree of malfunction absolutely unacceptable as a consumer. I'm not giving a free pass to all DRM. If it's causing serious problems for a significant number of legitimate users then it's a problem, it's been designed and implemented poorly, and it will justifiably alienate consumers. [QUOTE=Alice3173;52461054]If it was a one time thing people wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss over it.[/QUOTE] That's exactly my point. If, on the other hand, it's done well, then people don't kick up a fuss about it, and consumers get a user-friendly product while owners still get copy protection. If it's either so low-key that users aren't unduly impacted by it, or the system offers convenience and benefits to make up for its intrusiveness, then it'll do its job without a significant risk of harming legitimate users. If that's 'conceptually flawed' merely because it has the possibility of causing a problem (and for stuff like Denuvo I have yet to see any substantiated problems), then people happily consume conceptually flawed products every day and I fail to see the utility of the characterization. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=eirexe;52461106]Steam is not inherently DRM, Steam has a DRM component but it's up to the developers to use it, KSP does not need Steam to be running for example.[/QUOTE] If I go to GOG I can buy a game, download a nice little setup.exe, and save it on my backup drive. Once I have that file I can save, backup, install, do whatever with it completely under my control. I don't have to worry about having an Internet connection or remembering my GOG login because I actually own the game through its files just as surely as if I had a physical disk, and I can even make a backup disk if I want. With Steam, yes, I can play a game without Steam running once I have it installed. But to install it in the first place, I need an Internet connection, Steam, and a valid account. Even if I already have all the files necessary for installation backed up, I need Steam to install them. If I ever lose my account information, or go somewhere without Internet access, then I might still be able to play an installed game but I will never be able to install or patch it. Does 'requires online activation through third-party software' sound like DRM to you? It does to me. I [I]like[/I] Steam but the argument that it's not DRM always sounds like an attempt to twist definitions to fit the 'DRM is always bad' mantra. Steam is DRM, but it's DRM done right and shows that such a thing is possible.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52461207]And like I said, I consider [I]that[/I] degree of malfunction absolutely unacceptable as a consumer. I'm not giving a free pass to all DRM. If it's causing serious problems for a significant number of legitimate users then it's a problem, it's been designed and implemented poorly, and it will justifiably alienate consumers. That's exactly my point. If, on the other hand, it's done well, then people don't kick up a fuss about it, and consumers get a user-friendly product while owners still get copy protection. If it's either so low-key that users aren't unduly impacted by it, or the system offers convenience and benefits to make up for its intrusiveness, then it'll do its job without a significant risk of harming legitimate users. If that's 'conceptually flawed' merely because it has the possibility of causing a problem (and for stuff like Denuvo I have yet to see any substantiated problems), then people happily consume conceptually flawed products every day and I fail to see the utility of the characterization. [editline]12th July 2017[/editline] If I go to GOG I can buy a game, download a nice little setup.exe, and save it on my backup drive. Once I have that file I can save, backup, install, do whatever with it completely under my control. I don't have to worry about having an Internet connection or remembering my GOG login because I actually own the game through its files just as surely as if I had a physical disk, and I can even make a backup disk if I want. With Steam, yes, I can play a game without Steam running once I have it installed. But to install it in the first place, I need an Internet connection, Steam, and a valid account. Even if I already have all the files necessary for installation backed up, I need Steam to install them. If I ever lose my account information, or go somewhere without Internet access, then I might still be able to play an installed game but I will never be able to install or patch it. Does 'requires online activation through third-party software' sound like DRM to you? It does to me. I [I]like[/I] Steam but the argument that it's not DRM always sounds like an attempt to twist definitions to fit the 'DRM is always bad' mantra. Steam is DRM, but it's DRM done right and shows that such a thing is possible.[/QUOTE] As I said, you don't need steam to install the files in games that chose not to use Steam's DRM, I can take KSP's files and copy them to a new pc and it will run without Steam. After installation KSP is DRM-Free, you don't need anything besides from the game to be able to run it, not even an internet connection, you can back it up, copy it to a new PC and make it work. Steam does have DRM, and a lot of games use it, but it's not mandatory, Steamworks DRM is still terrible because it's DRM, a tool that attempt to control how and when you can consume the content you've paid for.

[QUOTE=taipan;52460949] Dont get me wrong, I am against all levels of DRM. But I dont get why this is so bad all of the sudden when its just a standard for something that has only proprietary systems now.[/QUOTE] Well, EME is technically open but it's also just an interface between a web browser and a DRM service. It's so controversial because the W3C is supposed to maintain the web as a fully open platform but you can't make open source DRM because it doesn't work, the browser also needs to be able to decrypt whatever interactions it has with the DRM and you can't open source that component for the same reason. It'd be like having a blueprint for your car keys on pamphlets in front of your house, all someone needed to do to steal it was have a copy made. It forces the hand of open source developers to implement something that goes against their principles by virtue of being standard and plays into the hands of closed source developers that seek surgical control of their content on the internet, more often than not to the detriment of consumers.

Wish these people would realize that sites like Netflix helps curb piracy. because it makes it a thousand times more convenient

Time to start a new internet this ones broken

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52452107]Say goodbye to adblock! Sadly knew it couldn't last. Imo proxies and anonymizing VPNs are next on the chopping block. We've lived in the wild west days of the internet, but it looks like that's coming to an end.[/QUOTE] I was already under the impression that sites could already block access to users if they have adblock installed. Forbes comes to mind but I'm wondering if that's legal because you could still access their content with adblock installed since they have a shit way of detecting it and they only detect it when you first visit the site.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52463736]I was already under the impression that sites could already block access to users if they have adblock installed. Forbes comes to mind but I'm wondering if that's legal because you could still access their content with adblock installed since they have a shit way of detecting it and they only detect it when you first visit the site.[/QUOTE] Forbes is especially amusing because of that time they told. People they couldn't browse the site with ad block, and then it was discovered that their ads served malware :v: [url]http://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/security/forbes-malware-ad-blocker-advertisements.html[/url]