• @SSUPII
    link
    English
    21
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Without video DRM those services don’t work at all. It was necessary to keep users.

    While for a web page this is simply unprecedented and useless.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      910 months ago

      Without video DRM those services don’t work at all.

      (x)

      • wallmenis
        link
        fedilink
        English
        610 months ago

        I think they meant it as a “necessary evil” because companies could start implementing their own drm and make everything more difficult to crack. Also without it, companies would not trust it without drm due to the greed.

      • @grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “Don’t work at all” in Firefox, when Chrome implements the DRM the service insists upon and Firefox doesn’t

        and

        “Don’t work at all” because the services can’t exist without DRM

        are very different assertions.

        I think you’re (rightfully!) doubting the latter, but the person you replied to meant the former.

    • @Mikina@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      But that’s exactly the point. The fact that they have given up before on something as small (compared to this proposal that could affect a lot more content) as video/audio DRM only means that anything they say about this is meaningless. Google already knows that Firefox fill just give in and implement it anyway, so they have literally no reason to listen to them.

      But I understand that there’s nothing they could’ve done about it, given their market share. Just like they can’t do anything in this situation, apart from “strongly disagreeing” before eventually being forced to implement it anyway, because without it more and more websites will stop working at all, and it will be necessary to keep users.