Nope. After Myst was a huge success, Cyan put some of the money into building their own dream office from the ground up. The Cyan office is vaguely reminiscent of Myst, and not the other way around.
You're missing the point. DRM is not bad for independent site authors (of course they can ignore it). It's bad for users because it restricts the set of browsers / operating systems they are allowed to use. That is not the point of the Web -- the point of the Web is that anybody can implement a free web browser using open tools and information. If this goes through, then I will have to use Hollywood-approved browsers to access the web. I won't have any "problems" as long as I use browsers Hollywood trusts with their keys. That is NOT how the Web is supposed to work.
Well, if you object to having DRM in the standard, then you should also have to object to anything in the standard that replaces stuff like silverlight and flash..
If you object to Hitler, you should also object to anybody else who has a moustache....
This is not like Silverlight and Flash, because those are not part of the web, they are separate plugins. True, a fully open system cannot access their content. But at least it's limited to content that loads up in a box in a plugin. Inviting DRM into the HTML standard means we could soon start seeing images that can't be saved to disk, text that can't be copied, etc, by simply using the same EME technology already established for video. Basically, I am worried that a lot MORE content will become DRM-encumbered now that the W3C has said it is okay.
What do you mean "all it does is prevent copying"? You do realise that everything that a computer does is copying, right? Watching a video is copying, therefore, DRM prevents watching videos unless certain specific circumstances are met. You said it yourself:
All this mechanism should do is restrict a container of content to one or more specified devices.
How is that an appropriate mechanism for the Web? The Web is supposed to work on all devices. If there is a device that the Web doesn't work on (assuming it is technically powerful enough), I should be able to implement a Web browser on that device to make it work. I should not need permission from any company to do so. That is the whole point of the Web, and it's the reason it is better than all of the other proprietary Internet services (like AOL, MSN) that came before it.
I'd love to know whether that's a real quote from the Windows logo rules. Unfortunately, a Google search for the text returns only one result: this comment. [Citation needed]
Chromebooks come with instructions on how to both:
a) unlock the bootloader and boot into a version of ChromeOS that gives you access to the Linux file system, allowing you to run arbitrary binaries including a modified kernel or Chrome executable, and
b) install alternative operating systems including Ubuntu, as well as running Ubuntu in a chroot (see: Crouton) so you can switch between ChromeOS and Ubuntu without rebooting.
There is nothing user-hostile down about Chromebook's boot protection. They just come with the security enabled by default (and make it a bit tricky to disable it so that an ordinary user does not accidentally flip the switch off). That is totally different from hardware that physically does not let the user install custom binaries.
Every game on the OUYA can be tried for free. You don't have to put a credit card in to start downloading apps from the store.
Actually, it seems about half of the Kickstarter backers (myself included) are being forced to enter their credit card info just to get to the console's main menu.
My OUYA is sitting on my shelf, unused at the moment, because I refuse to put my credit card into it as I wait for a response from OUYA support. I have no idea why some people are getting in for free, and others of us are being forced to enter credit card info, but there had sure be a good explanation.
+1 Thankyou for a clear and detailed description of Minecraft authentication. Makes sense that it's not DRM.
I haven't tried Minecraft myself (I was turned off by the DRM). But I've read a lot of online discussions where someone claims there is online activation and they can't play while the server is down, and other people quickly come on to say it's not that bad. But it seems like there is DRM and while you can play single player offline, you cannot connect to servers even if they are local LAN. If that's true, it sounds disingenuous to say there is no DRM.
Are you saying otherwise?
Although Minecraft is DRM free, it still requires server-side activation.
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. All game developers like to tell you that their product is DRM-free. A "DRM-free" product means you'll get people like GP using your product as positive examples in debates about DRM. EA don't say that their product has DRM, they say it has exciting multiplayer capabilities, and that allowing offline support would ruin the game.
What if it's too late by then? What if Microsoft wait until it's gotten to the point where every major software vendor is selling through the Windows Store and then cuts out sideloading? Why don't you ditch Windows now and be part of the solution, and not the problem?
Well put. I just want to add that while the first two are just fighting fire with fire, the third point is actually a public benefit of patents.
The stupidity of that third argument is that it is a public benefit of patents for virtually all endeavours except open source. Open source is already open by definition. There is absolutely no additional public benefit to having an invention described in a deliberately confusing, twisted and generic legalese document, when you already have the complete working source code and (hopefully) documentation available on the Internet. Patents do not help people understand inventions. That was their original intention, but it has long since been corrupted by lawyers.
So yes, totally agree. These arguments do not show any net benefit of the patent system for open source.
My brother bought a Blu-ray player last year. I shit you not: there was a feature bullet list on the box, and one of the bullet points was "Secure protected content."
They are actually advertising DRM as a feature now... give me a break.
I would really love to agree with you, but I think you're wrong.
Even if every browser maker on the planet suddenly co-opted to every demand by the entertainment industry, people would simply stop using newer web browsers.
You really think that Joe Everybody is going to reject the automatic update on Internet Explorer when the DRM update comes in? No, if browser manufacturers go down this route, you can guarantee that 95% of the planet will have a DRM-ready web browser installed within a week.
They can't win the war by swaying public opinion -- the public is stupid. Very stupid. Monumentally stupid... but not that stupid.
Are you sure? Hell, even half the people on Slashdot seem to have fallen into the mindless "piracy is theft" propaganda trap. Scroll through this page to find at least a dozen comments that say "sure, DRM is annoying, but if you don't like DRM then you must be a thief." The public is grossly swayed on this issue by the media companies. Yes, a lot of people pirate things, but in my experience, the very same people who don't give a shit about copyright law (the pirates) also don't give a shit about DRM. They'll work around it. They won't fight against it. Everybody else, well they'll just see the word "protected" and think that's a good thing.
You argue that the Internet will always allow the free flow of information -- I think you're probably right about that. But this isn't about whether it will be possible to get a pirate feed of some movie in the future -- I guarantee you will be able to. This is about legitimate uses of technology. In the future, it will be illegal to consume media and also use free software. The only way to do it will be by breaking the law. That's what the problem is.
Worse, even if I don't give a shit about Big Copyright's media, and want nothing to do with it, I'll still have to buy into their DRM because it will be illegal to sell hardware without it.
Netflix isn't going touch hardware or sorfware you already own.
That would be fine if I wasn't planning to buy another computer for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, I've noticed that computers don't last terribly long, so while I'm not worried about them infecting my current computer with malware (DRM forcibly installed in the hardware is malware), I certainly am worried about my next computer. At the rate we're going, I certainly won't have a choice in the matter, so don't act like there is consumer choice here.