What Netflix does isn't the web. All the web standards can be freely implemented anywhere. Nothing can be gained from pulling DRM into the web: Instead of walling off the content that doesn't want to be part of the open web, we'd wall off the most open implementations of the web.
Netflix isn't on the web?! WTF? I thought I'd heard it all, but this is the single most hysterical rationalization I've heard on Slashdot. Congrats!
Saddest part of all those quotes is they are begging us to let them post their crap and not free it so they can continue to have their business the way they have had it for the last century. Unlike the music industry they know that a) without the internet there is no hope for sales with their target audience high enough to consider it profitable. B) They don't want to do the all at once everywhere and with all media because that kills off their money stream. If the movie is crap, then no one will buy any of it and they wont make enough money for it to be profitable. This is actually their last attempt at getting some form of copy protection on it. Those execs want their money. I say let them wall themselves off. Those who choose to embrace the new order will live, accept that it will be some what free and use those uploads and downloads as a popularity meter. Everyone else can go away
You haven't the slightest idea who the W3C is, do you?
Here's a list of Jeff Jaffe's quotes from the article. Please point to the quote in which he claims "...they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal."
The quotes are:
"The concern that we have is the premium content that owners are protecting using DRM will end up being forever severed from the web"
"We would like the web platform to be a universal platform. We don't think it's good when content finds its way into walled gardens or into closed apps."
"We're not going to standardise proprietary DRM systems, but on the other hand we don't want it to be excluded from the web platform. The compromise is a set of open APIs that give a standard framework to bring in this content via plug-in, but where we don't standardise the plug-in."
"We haven't standardised EME, all that we've done to date is we've accepted the fact that content protection is a valid requirement and a valid use case the web platform community should be concerned with."
"That's been taken up by the HTML Working Group and right now EME is merely the current proposal. But lots of people have talked about different solutions to content protection -- [for instance] watermarking -- and from the point of view of the consortium if the web community were to reach a consensus that there's a better way to protect the content that's OK."
It seems you're ignoring the point on purpose here. The W3C isn't forcing anyone to use DRM. The W3C doesn't care if your DRM works.
The web is whatever "we" want it to be. Since there are companies using DRM on the web, it only makes sense to expand the specs to include that. It's just the next logical step towards finally killing Flash, Silverlight, etc.
If you're really going to be paranoid, how do you know your machine isn't compromised? I hope you're doing a bit-for-bit comparison on your hard drive twice a day to make sure there's no file changes you didn't approve, and that you've soldered the top off our CPU and put it under a high power microscope to ensure the circuits haven't been changed.
Miranda rights are only read to you if you're being arrested. But I guess you'd have to read all the way to the fourth sentence in the summary to see that this guy hadn't been arrested at the time his silence was used against him.
It's not easy to monetize a website, but compared to a desktop application? Are you kidding me?
With a website you have a limited resource that you can control access to. That's just not the case with desktop software.
Users *refuse* to put up with ads in desktop apps. Period. A certain percentage of users will pay if the app is top-notch, but when you're competing against free products it's a tough sell. The Songbird folks certainly had some tough free competition -- Winamp, iTunes, Foobar, etc.
Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.and/or activate the memory wipe software built into Android, iOS, and Windows phones.
There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)
Speaking of danger, when someone sues you because your software crashed their airplane into a nuclear reactor, you're going to be wishing you'd picked a more restrictive license.
Obama must be impeached. The Congressmen and Senators who support his actions must be impeached. The courts who OK this must be removed. Washington D.C. must be burned to the ground and rebuilt if there are none there who will honor their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We could do all that, but we'd be right back where we started. The fundamental problem is the American people, who have time and time again said that they simply don't care. The government listening to our calls? We don't care. Reading our emails? We don't care. Hiding disturbing truths about our perpetual wars? We couldn't care less.
Blame government officials all you want, but remember this: as a democracy we get the government we deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix isn't on the web?! WTF? I thought I'd heard it all, but this is the single most hysterical rationalization I've heard on Slashdot. Congrats!
You haven't the slightest idea who the W3C is, do you?
I already can't play Netflix movies on my Ubuntu box. How is this different than the current status quo?
How so? What is there about the web that adding a DRM hook to the official spec would suddenly change?
Here's a list of Jeff Jaffe's quotes from the article. Please point to the quote in which he claims "...they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal."
The quotes are:
Exactly which quote are you referring to?
Keeping closed-standards for DRM integration helps open standards? WTF? I think that's enough Slashdot for you for today.
So your evidence of the W3C's intentions is an anonymous Slashdot user's summary? Oh dear.
[citation needed]
Since there already is DRM on the web, I think we can all agree that the W3C's proposal will not change the "walled-offness" of the web.
It seems you're ignoring the point on purpose here. The W3C isn't forcing anyone to use DRM. The W3C doesn't care if your DRM works.
The web is whatever "we" want it to be. Since there are companies using DRM on the web, it only makes sense to expand the specs to include that. It's just the next logical step towards finally killing Flash, Silverlight, etc.
Okay, someone needs to make a game titled "Hypersensitive Gender Warrior."
You mean like all the other people who failed to gain traction that way? Repeating someone else's failure is not usually considered a viable strategy for success. Please tell us why you think otherwise.
Nope, you can't hold people accountable for things that other people might do. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
You mean like the Orwellian surveillance program the government has been hiding?
If you're really going to be paranoid, how do you know your machine isn't compromised? I hope you're doing a bit-for-bit comparison on your hard drive twice a day to make sure there's no file changes you didn't approve, and that you've soldered the top off our CPU and put it under a high power microscope to ensure the circuits haven't been changed.
That's funny, I didn't know Amazon Web Services sold DVDs.
As much as I like Java, there's a few obvious features that it's somehow still missing:
C# has all of these, of course.
The Ubuntu trademark is certainly not open source.
Miranda rights are only read to you if you're being arrested. But I guess you'd have to read all the way to the fourth sentence in the summary to see that this guy hadn't been arrested at the time his silence was used against him.
It's not easy to monetize a website, but compared to a desktop application? Are you kidding me?
With a website you have a limited resource that you can control access to. That's just not the case with desktop software.
Users *refuse* to put up with ads in desktop apps. Period. A certain percentage of users will pay if the app is top-notch, but when you're competing against free products it's a tough sell. The Songbird folks certainly had some tough free competition -- Winamp, iTunes, Foobar, etc.
There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)
Speaking of danger, when someone sues you because your software crashed their airplane into a nuclear reactor, you're going to be wishing you'd picked a more restrictive license.
Specifically, one with a "no warranty" provision.
How exactly will they do the same with PCIe and SSDs? Explain.
Um... what the hell are you babbling about?
Replacing the tryanny of an ignorant majority with the tyranny of a well-armed minority is hardly an upgrade.
We could do all that, but we'd be right back where we started. The fundamental problem is the American people, who have time and time again said that they simply don't care. The government listening to our calls? We don't care. Reading our emails? We don't care. Hiding disturbing truths about our perpetual wars? We couldn't care less.
Blame government officials all you want, but remember this: as a democracy we get the government we deserve.