Unwelcome

[Alpha o]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03..._web_standard/

DRM for the web.

[bgalbrecht]

The fact of the matter is that we already have DRM for the web, with the hideously insecure flash and silverlight plugins. If this means we can switch to a much more secure html5 implementation with built in DRM, that works non windows, non mac systems, it's still better than the status quo.

[Sweetpea]

I never had a problem with DRM, as long as it doesn't stop me from accessing content I have a right to access on any device I'd like to access it on. Which is what DRM on ebooks does (you cannot read all formats on all devices and you cannot change format unless you remove the DRM).

So, I'm all for this DRM for HTML5 as HTML5 is (or should be!) supported on any device that is capable of showing video streams.

[HarryT]

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Content providers have a right to protect streamed content, and this won't prevent anyone from watching such streams.

[aardbewoner]

Yes and this scare me "anti-piracy mechanism was crafted by engineers from google, microsoft, and netflix " are all WindowComputer only engineers.Only good working on there platforms,and streaming only,no saving allowed.We are a volatile world, no power no life.

[Alpha o]

Originally Posted by aardbewoner

Yes and this scare me "anti-piracy mechanism was crafted by engineers from google, microsoft, and netflix " are all WindowComputer only engineers.Only good working on there platforms,and streaming only,no saving allowed.We are a volatile world, no power no life.

And have you noticed that all of the above are now mostly advertising platforms? If it's going to make them or your ISP more money, then what do you think happens to your choice?

I can see all of the above, including Apple, demanding you use a certain browser if on a computer, or a certain digital receiver such as Roku, X-Box, Amazon Fire Stick and Apple whatever to view whichever theater type movie each one has garnered.

We are OTA, still have working VHS/DVD recorders, and don't do movies. (They bore us) I won't buy from Kobo or Amazon. The same books are available on both, and sometimes on independents. So why bother? I'll pay for the book, I don't mind that. I also won't pirate it.

At the same time, I dislike the fact that I can't buy from wherever. There are BBC documentaries I'd buy but can't.

I dislike MS and Google. I use each on my terms. You can root an Android phone. I use Linux for anything important, and my XP boxes run legacy Windows only software. They are off line.

I like my inkBOOK. I can ignore the mfg since it isn't screaming about being online and it DOESN'T HAVE GOOGLE!

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Content providers have a right to protect streamed content, and this won't prevent anyone from watching such streams.

I think I've seen this movie before. Providers want to force consumers to consume exactly according to the provider's business plan, without regard to how the consumer may wish to watch. It generally doesn't work out well for the providers.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I never had a problem with DRM, as long as it doesn't stop me from accessing content I have a right to access on any device I'd like to access it on. Which is what DRM on ebooks does (you cannot read all formats on all devices and you cannot change format unless you remove the DRM).

So, I'm all for this DRM for HTML5 as HTML5 is (or should be!) supported on any device that is capable of showing video streams.

This will probably prevent me from viewing content I have a right to access. I rarely use my pc anymore since getting 8 inch tablets. I currently use Opera and UC browsers in desktop mode because I find mobile sites are usually pretty bad. I can't login to my Chase account anymore on these browsers because Chase considers them out of date.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think I've seen this movie before. Providers want to force consumers to consume exactly according to the provider's business plan, without regard to how the consumer may wish to watch.

No, they - entirely reasonably, to my mind - want to prevent people from stealing streamed video. This will have no impact whatsoever on anyone watching it legally.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

This will probably prevent me from viewing content I have a right to access. I rarely use my pc anymore since getting 8 inch tablets. I currently use Opera and UC browsers in desktop mode because I find mobile sites are usually pretty bad. I can't login to my Chase account anymore on these browsers because Chase considers them out of date.

Unfortunately, if you're not using an HTML5-compliant browser, there's going to be an awful lot of the web that'll be unavailable to you. Can you really not get a browser that supports HTML5 for whatever device it is that you're using?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Content providers have a right to protect streamed content, and this won't prevent anyone from watching such streams.

Or recording them if they are so determined.
If it can be decoded so it can be seen hardware can be made to access that decoded information and record it in an insecure format.

I think that someone or other has pointed this out on every encryption thread ever. And when every encryption scheme eventually fails the same group of people is always surprised.

Until the next scheme. They are always certain it will work this time.

Kind of like the people who truly believe their next offsite storage will remain accessable for decades even though it doesn't cost much if anything.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, if you're not using an HTML5-compliant browser, there's going to be an awful lot of the web that'll be unavailable to you. Can you really not get a browser that supports HTML5 for whatever device it is that you're using?

I don't know if it's HTML-5 compliant or not. I am using an android device and Chrome doesn't have the accessibility options I need like text reflow when you make the fonts larger.

[HarryT]

Is there an Android version of Firefox? I use the iOS version on my iPhone and it's pretty good.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is there an Android version of Firefox? I use the iOS version on my iPhone and it's pretty good.

Can it do text reflow? Last time I tried it it couldn't.

[HarryT]

You mean you want the text to reflow if you zoom in on the screen? I've never come across a browser that did that. It sounds as if it would be horribly distracting.