RMS Said: " If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"
...so...
If we standardize it in the browser (HTML5) - we won't have to implement it in the OS.
I don't like DRM either - but I would like my services like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix or whatever to work across all my devices. As much as I would love to have these services simply unprotect all their content - I don't think they'll do it, and I wouldn't if I were them. If they choose to bog-down their services with anti-ad-skipping technologies and nasty things of the such (which Amazon and Netflix do NOT btw) - those service who don't will win out.
Steep learning curve aside - not a freaking bad idea!
I think the drawback is - people who do Morse fast don't actually use a "button" - they use one of those bigger clickity-clackity things that seem to allow them to go faster. A simple "button" might slow them down - at least a bit.
Netflix is a big enough of a company that they've put their plug-in into my DVD burner, my Tivo, an app on my iPhone, and plug-in's for my browser.
Great.
If some other company or service started today - they'd have a VERY steep curve to go and create plug-ins for all such devices. They would NEVER work across any OLD/existing devices. So I'd argue the lack of DRM standards are helping incumbent services maintain their monopolistic market dominance.
I agree. But if a service elects to use it anyway - why not just give them a standardized way to do it - that will work across all devices, rather than making them jump through hoops, creating different plug-ins for all sorts of devices, many of which are less-trivial than others. (Think writing a Firefox plug-in vs. a Tivo or Wii plug-in).
If the services deem this as "sufficient" protection, give them a way to do it. If you're "pissed-off" by the way a particular service choose to implement it, and the restrictions they impose, you are welcome to not use their service. But at least you would be able to run a service that you *did* choose to use on a wide variety of HTML-5 compatible devices.
As it stands today - they can still design DRM that pisses you off, but have less options on what to view them on.
Great example: DVDs are a PITA - they don't let you rewind, or fast-forward through ads. I don't like them - so I don't buy, rent or watch them. With Netflix, I don't "own" the content - but they don't force me to watch ads. For the price they charge, It's a good service and a good deal - so I use them. Netflix is a big enough of a company that they've put their plug-in into my DVD burner, my Tivo, an app on my iPhone, and plug-in's for my browser. Great.
If some other company or service started today - they'd have a VERY steep curve to go and create plug-ins for all such devices - and they would NOT work across any OLD devices.So I'd argue the lack of DRM standards are helping incumbent services maintain their monopolistic market dominance.
No, it would merely *allow* one to play DRM protected content. If you don't like the protection, don't use that services content. Service do all this today, they just need *proprietary* plug-ins to do so.
Then if you are faced with purchasing content with such restrictions: don't.
However, if someone wants to have a video service that let's you do all that - maybe you'd elect to patronize them.
Give people the choice and the means to create and offer products and services that will work in a standardized way. Then it's up to the consumer to device what they'll use.
Yes - I *am* forced to do this, despite the existence of an HTML-standard DRM. But today I'm forced to do it via some very device-specific plug-ins that only work on a fraction of my devices. For this reason, so many devices won't even let me play the content at all - so I am left with *less* choice as a result, and I *still* have to sit through crappy ads.
If you don't like the ads - don't use the service - but don't think you're going to prevent the publishers/distrubutors/whoever remove them altogether - except maybe with your pocket-book. Patronize services who give you what you want.
How is it "hobbling" the technology. If you don't like the DRM aspect of it - don't watch protected content with it. It's not going to have any affect on you.
...is that when I went back to the original Slashdot post on "Ian Hickson (author of HTML5 spec.) on the real purpose of DRM" - the enclosed link to the original article made me go through a sign-on to Google Plus":-O
As much as like the concept of "open and free", blah blah blah - I'm not really buying the argument. I don't want to swallow "big media's" load of tripe on the issue - things aren't all black-and-white. I don't necessarily swallow the arguments made by the OP about wanting to "sell back services" and "limiting functionality of devices". "Big Media" doesn't care about your device or what it does - it *does* care about piracy, though. So let's call a spade a spade, and admit that it *is* about copy protection (whether you like/agree with it or not).
This is like the old DIVX argument from years ago. Just because your device is *capable* of playing protected content - it doesn't mean you *have* to play (or pay for) protected content. It would be nice to be able to offer the functionality for services like Netflix, Amazon, or whoever else you want to watch, in a standardized, cross-platform manner, without every media provider having to build some hokey Java or Flash player into every browser, TV, DVD player, Game console, etc etc etc - and still have wonky support for only half the devices, and no support for "new" services on "legacy" devices.
But I digress - I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion on the matter - let's just call a spade a spade - it *is* about copy-protection.
Apple explicitly allows this - I think this goes back a couple years with Kindle stuff.
If you sell through apple, they get a cut. If you are going to take money thought the app, you have to do it via the AppStore, thus Apple will get a cut.
The other provision is that if you allow you app to merelty talk to an existing "subscription", you can do that. You just cant do purchases, or exchange money through the app. For example, I can go to Amazon's web site and buy a Kindle book and link it to my Amazon account. I can get the Kindle app and look at any books in my Kindle account. I CANNOT however purchase books through the Kindle app while NOT doing this through Apple and the AppStore.
This is why you can read Kindle books, but not purchase them via the iOS app.
Isn't this very, very old news? As I recall - nearly any session can be hijacked in this way. **IF** you don't use a secure connection SSL/HTTPS.
This is why sites like Google and Facebook now *strongly* prefer HTTPS connections, because they are not vulnerable to snooping the cookies.
...that if I am deemed "hip enough" - to be "accepted" - I still have to pay $1500, and drive to New York to get the damn thing. But please don't make me have to "follow you" on Google-Plus!!!
Slashdot Mirror
If we standardize it in the browser (HTML5) - we won't have to implement it in the OS.
I don't like DRM either - but I would like my services like Amazon, Hulu, Netflix or whatever to work across all my devices. As much as I would love to have these services simply unprotect all their content - I don't think they'll do it, and I wouldn't if I were them. If they choose to bog-down their services with anti-ad-skipping technologies and nasty things of the such (which Amazon and Netflix do NOT btw) - those service who don't will win out.
Steep learning curve aside - not a freaking bad idea! I think the drawback is - people who do Morse fast don't actually use a "button" - they use one of those bigger clickity-clackity things that seem to allow them to go faster. A simple "button" might slow them down - at least a bit.
Great.
If some other company or service started today - they'd have a VERY steep curve to go and create plug-ins for all such devices. They would NEVER work across any OLD/existing devices. So I'd argue the lack of DRM standards are helping incumbent services maintain their monopolistic market dominance.
If the services deem this as "sufficient" protection, give them a way to do it. If you're "pissed-off" by the way a particular service choose to implement it, and the restrictions they impose, you are welcome to not use their service. But at least you would be able to run a service that you *did* choose to use on a wide variety of HTML-5 compatible devices.
As it stands today - they can still design DRM that pisses you off, but have less options on what to view them on.
Great example: DVDs are a PITA - they don't let you rewind, or fast-forward through ads. I don't like them - so I don't buy, rent or watch them. With Netflix, I don't "own" the content - but they don't force me to watch ads. For the price they charge, It's a good service and a good deal - so I use them. Netflix is a big enough of a company that they've put their plug-in into my DVD burner, my Tivo, an app on my iPhone, and plug-in's for my browser. Great.
If some other company or service started today - they'd have a VERY steep curve to go and create plug-ins for all such devices - and they would NOT work across any OLD devices.So I'd argue the lack of DRM standards are helping incumbent services maintain their monopolistic market dominance.
No, it would merely *allow* one to play DRM protected content. If you don't like the protection, don't use that services content. Service do all this today, they just need *proprietary* plug-ins to do so.
However, if someone wants to have a video service that let's you do all that - maybe you'd elect to patronize them.
Give people the choice and the means to create and offer products and services that will work in a standardized way. Then it's up to the consumer to device what they'll use.
If you don't like the ads - don't use the service - but don't think you're going to prevent the publishers/distrubutors/whoever remove them altogether - except maybe with your pocket-book. Patronize services who give you what you want.
How is it "hobbling" the technology. If you don't like the DRM aspect of it - don't watch protected content with it. It's not going to have any affect on you.
What does HTML5 standards have to do with DVDs?
...is that when I went back to the original Slashdot post on "Ian Hickson (author of HTML5 spec.) on the real purpose of DRM" - the enclosed link to the original article made me go through a sign-on to Google Plus" :-O
This is like the old DIVX argument from years ago. Just because your device is *capable* of playing protected content - it doesn't mean you *have* to play (or pay for) protected content. It would be nice to be able to offer the functionality for services like Netflix, Amazon, or whoever else you want to watch, in a standardized, cross-platform manner, without every media provider having to build some hokey Java or Flash player into every browser, TV, DVD player, Game console, etc etc etc - and still have wonky support for only half the devices, and no support for "new" services on "legacy" devices.
But I digress - I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion on the matter - let's just call a spade a spade - it *is* about copy-protection.
Why do images of Tyrone Biggums opening Senator Daschel's mail come to mind. (Am I dating myself here?!)
Do the use of "Composite" aircraft (i.e. Dreamliner) skins make this worse - as there is less of a Faraday cage around people?
Is it just me - or are all these "miracle science" posts today making me feel like it's April Fool's day or something???
Apple explicitly allows this - I think this goes back a couple years with Kindle stuff. If you sell through apple, they get a cut. If you are going to take money thought the app, you have to do it via the AppStore, thus Apple will get a cut. The other provision is that if you allow you app to merelty talk to an existing "subscription", you can do that. You just cant do purchases, or exchange money through the app. For example, I can go to Amazon's web site and buy a Kindle book and link it to my Amazon account. I can get the Kindle app and look at any books in my Kindle account. I CANNOT however purchase books through the Kindle app while NOT doing this through Apple and the AppStore. This is why you can read Kindle books, but not purchase them via the iOS app.
...these articles were ACTUALLY funny.
I think so...I'm very, *very* slow... :-L
I don't know what they were smoking when they came up with this "stunt"...
You know those guitars that are like, double guitars?
Buy! Buy! Buy!!!
If so...again, SSL fixes this.
Isn't this very, very old news? As I recall - nearly any session can be hijacked in this way. **IF** you don't use a secure connection SSL/HTTPS. This is why sites like Google and Facebook now *strongly* prefer HTTPS connections, because they are not vulnerable to snooping the cookies.
What, so only APPLE is allowed to run a sweatshop?
...that if I am deemed "hip enough" - to be "accepted" - I still have to pay $1500, and drive to New York to get the damn thing. But please don't make me have to "follow you" on Google-Plus!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/09/kroll-show-drones-video_n_2653407.html