• SSUPII@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      (x)

      • wallmenis@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year 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
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.