Re: WebVR and DRM

I'd like to add that I find it extremely peculiar that most people here
discussing this topic will never use this API, nor will they know anybody
who does. In all likelyhood, nobody here will ever use it.

The person who's gonna use it is going to be some programmer at one of only
a handful of very predictable companies, long after everything here was
said and done. Is it going to be like this from now on, every small group
of companies gets their own pet standard because... reasons?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Sean McBeth <sean.mcbeth@primrosevr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It is certainly no more political than HTTPS everywhere and requiring
>> secure origins for WebVR,
>>
> It's a lot more political than that. DRM does not achieve its overt goal
> at all. However what it does achieve is keep the innovative riff-raff at
> bay and the competition out.
>
> I don't think that something that's defective by design, that cannot work,
> and which imposes a pleathora of social, legal, technical, ethical and
> usability issues has a proper place to exist. No user ever said "I wish I
> had DRM". It's an anti-feature. It's borne from a user-hostile mindset and
> a compulsive need to eradicate rights once enjoyed. It's a digital landgrab
> performed by a syndicate that have agreed to levy the same treatment on all
> so that no competition can exist.
>
> Tell me whence the copyright on your DRM'ed content expires, how will you
> exercise your rights if not by use of illegitimate means? How is that
> logical?
>
>
>> which Google and Mozilla decided in their infinite wisdom for us.
>>
> Curious how you attribute infinite wisdom to large corporations which
> typically behave in psychopathic ways (there was a study on that).
>