Tech Off Thread

18 posts

DRM, whats the big deal?

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    trolane

    All i have been hearing about the last few days is how hardware drm is bad. My view of it would be it is not bad. My experience with DRM has been good. I purchase music from MSN music and have no issues with the DRM. I can copy it to any portable device (phone or my gateway mp3/wma player) , burn cds ( though no need to ) and play it on 5 machines. 5 machines allows music to be shared on 5 different computers, more then enough. I prefer wma or wmv over any other format as they have better quality. 

    In order for hardware to enforce DRM the media must be DRMed to begin with. So all the illegal content will still be usable while publishers issue DRM content. Who should have a problem with DRM content? The people used to ripping off content providers. I'm sure DRM content will have pretty liberal rights like MSN music has or else they would not like the MSN music service for delivering music.

    My only bad experience with DRM has been the people who cannot implement it as good as Microsoft, aka FullAudio. Formatting your machine with FullAudio licenses is a pita.

    I am a firm beleiver in "monopolies" being good when it comes to software. I never enjoyed having to worry about Netscape vs. IE in the browser war days. Netscape never supported the good stuff. Integration between products tightly can only happen under one roof. If this wasn't true using linux wouldn't be such a pita with the thousand mediocre software projects. All applications that integrate well are made under one roof. For example, office suites, browser/email suites.

    Anyways, the point is I have full trust Microsoft knows what it is doing and i'll still be buying from them till the day i die.
     




     

  • User profile image
    harumscarum

    trolane wrote:
    Who should have a problem with DRM content? The people used to ripping off content providers.
     


    I do not "rip off" providers. I have a problem with DRM when it locks me into using only their software. I have given up on downloading music through MSN, ITunes, and napster and now just buy used cds from Amazon.

    trolane wrote:
    Integration between products tightly can only happen under one roof.


    Then where does innovation and competition come from? There are very few "consumer" software products that I use from MS. I actually prefer applications that just do what they are suppose to do and not add 30 options of fluff.

  • User profile image
    trolane

    innovation and competition come from companies trying to compete. I am well aware of that aspect and like the competition. The thing is i know who will come out on top and it will be Microsoft as they always deliver, to me at least, a better product. Microsoft improves products the best when it has war mentality ( Netscape, AOL, Media, just to name a few).

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    trolane wrote:
    innovation and competition come from companies trying to compete. I am well aware of that aspect and like the competition. The thing is i know who will come out on top and it will be Microsoft as they always deliver, to me at least, a better product.


    Okay...

    So explain how Internet Explorer is better than Firefox in every way possible

    Or why FrontPage is better than Macromedia's Dreamweaver.

    Or why MSPaint is better than Adobe Photoshop or The GIMP.

    Or why MSN Messenger is better than Trillian.

    Newsflash people! Microsoft doesn't always make the best software in a given category!

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    I'll give you a practical problem with DRM: If you want to burn songs you purchased at MSN music, you can only burn them in Mediaplayer itself. But the burning capabilities are not as advanced as (for example) Nero Burning ROM. For example: If you download an album where all the songs are mixed into eachother you don't want a 2 second pause between them. Unfortunately, Mediaplayer adds that pause with no option to turn it off.
    But Nero can't burn the songs because they can't decode the files.

  • User profile image
    trolane

    W3bbo wrote:
    trolane wrote: innovation and competition come from companies trying to compete. I am well aware of that aspect and like the competition. The thing is i know who will come out on top and it will be Microsoft as they always deliver, to me at least, a better product.


    Okay...

    So explain how Internet Explorer is better than Firefox in every way possible

    Or why FrontPage is better than Macromedia's Dreamweaver.

    Or why MSPaint is better than Adobe Photoshop or The GIMP.

    Or why MSN Messenger is better than Trillian.

    Newsflash people! Microsoft doesn't always make the best software in a given category!


    Firefox came out after the last IE update. IE7 is sure to give FireFox a run for its money. Btw firefox is in no way better then IE with xp sp2 installed. It cannot use ActiveX and there are pages that plain do not render.

    Dreamweaver vs. Frontpage. I do not use either since i use visual studio.

    For my purposes paint is better then photoshop or gimp.

    trillian can be broken anytime as last i knew it was not copasetic to use 3rd party programs on private im networks. Besides i have no respect for AOLIM users.


  • User profile image
    trolane

    ZippyV wrote:

    I'll give you a practical problem with DRM: If you want to burn songs you purchased at MSN music, you can only burn them in Mediaplayer itself. But the burning capabilities are not as advanced as (for example) Nero Burning ROM. For example: If you download an album where all the songs are mixed into eachother you don't want a 2 second pause between them. Unfortunately, Mediaplayer adds that pause with no option to turn it off.
    But Nero can't burn the songs because they can't decode the files.



    i'm sure as DRM takes off microsoft will have drm wrapper dencoding that works from non wmp applications. It would only make sense to do that because the wars goal is to get the content in your format. You make money off the licensing deals of the DRM not the free WMP.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Microsoft doesn't allow 3th party software to use their drm. Except for devices.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    trolane wrote:
    Firefox came out after the last IE update. IE7 is sure to give FireFox a run for its money. Btw firefox is in no way better then IE with xp sp2 installed. It cannot use ActiveX and there are pages that plain do not render.


    IE6 doesn't adhere to established internet standards.

    Some pages don't render correctly in Firefox because they were imcorrectly written.

    Besides, what's the use of ActiveX in this day and age anyway? Dotnetletts are the future.

    And how can IE6SP2 be better than Firefox when it doesn't have:
    Adblock
    Flashblock
    Element outlining
    Standards Compliance
    Element-specific javascript disabling
    Inherent security by design

    trolane wrote:
    Dreamweaver vs. Frontpage. I do not use either since i use visual studio.


    Ever tried Dreamweaver? Right now Dreamweaver MX (2002) is a much better HTML editor than Visual Studio 2003 (but not 2005, but that isn't RTM yet)

    trolane wrote:
    For my purposes paint is better then photoshop or gimp.


    Ah yes... but is it better for everyone?

    trolane said:
    trillian can be broken anytime as last i knew it was not copasetic to use 3rd party programs on private im networks. Besides i have no respect for AOLIM users.


    "Broken anytime"? "not copasetic"? "private IM networks", "AOLIM users"?

    Please, stop talking shít and then people will debate with you Smiley

  • User profile image
    andokai

    Wow a real life Microsoft fanboy. Given the site I'm suprised we haven't seen more.

    Look at the title of the post. Absolute nonsense!

  • User profile image
    gswitz

    Let's not forget about legal peer to peer. http://furthurnet.org or http://etree.org

  • User profile image
    dotnetjunkie

    W3bbo wrote:

    Some pages don't render correctly in Firefox because they were imcorrectly written.



    I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!
    They want you to believe that, and I can't believe you fell for it, because it really is complete NONSENSE!
    Why? It's far too easy to blame the pages or the people that created them. Think of it: what's the task of a webbrowser? To browse the web, to display the content that is on the web. Well, FF doesn't do that very well, it displays far less content than IE. Point is, the content IS THERE, it's too late to go back and do everything in another way...

    On one hand, you probably have millions of pages on the Internet with coding errors, and it's not realistic to expect that these will ever be updated to render correctly in Firefox.  No, it's the task of a good browser to automatically correct these errors, and still display the page right (to the best extent possible).

    Even when HTML tags are omitted etc. IE still does a GREAT job displaying the content, while other browsers (or more correctly: rendering engines) FAIL!

    Please don't fall for the hype, but look at it like you should, from a technology standpoint: it's much, much more complicated to write an HTML parser that can handle and compensate errors and inconsistencies, than it is to write a parser that just does what is in the standards, and "gives up" on anything not "compliant"! (hey, and people DO make mistakes)

    Microsoft has done a wonderful job with their HTML parser, and there is no other product on earth that even comes close.  You need much more code to create such an "indulgent" parser, which really is a requirement for the Internet (you have NO control over other people's pages, and many websites are never updated anymore, although they might contain valuable content and it should still be possible to visit them).

    On the other hand, you have the perfectly well-coded pages that ALSO don't render in Firefox, because they use advanced techniques that FF doesn't support (and provide no real alternative for!).  I won't go into detail here but I can assure you that our web development team has come accross several cases where this is the case and consequently made the blunt decision to simply not support Firefox and it's minority share of users.  When it's possible to create a GREAT and feature-rich web application on IE, whereas a cross-browser solution would be far more limited, have a less rich and user-friendly UI etc..., I know what to prefer, and so do our customers...

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    dotnetjunkie: Get a clue!

    Pages don't render in Firefox because they were incorrectly written! PERIOD!.

    It is the author's fault if they don't stick to the well-established internet and world-wide-web standards and specifications.

    Granted, some honus is on the rendering engine to correctly parse mal-formed SGML, but I don't believe that more modern standards should be dumbed down!

    What is wrong with Gecko showing an XML Parser error when an XHTML page is malformed?

    And my original point wasn't about the SGML being mal-formed, but the web-author using propriety extensions without providing any kind of fall-back for other browsers. Consider websites that use the <object cslid=""/> element rather than the W3C sanctioned <object type=""/> element which works in ALL browsers.

    And what do you mean by "advanced techniques"? If you're refering to the DirectX "Filter" and "Behaviour" properties in IE, then Firefox can do all of those using STANDARD methods. IE doesn't. IE is incorrect!

    Enough, this is turning into a flame-war between the rightous steadfast of open standards Vs. a Microsoft fanboy supporting closed and propriety standards.

    Believe IE is the better browser all you want, but open web-standards exist for a reason. And just face up to the fact that IE doesn't fully support CSS2 or XHTML to an acceptable level in this day and age.

  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    trolane wrote:
    All i have been hearing about the last few days is how hardware drm is bad. My view of it would be it is not bad. My experience with DRM has been good. I purchase music from MSN music and have no issues with the DRM. I can copy it to any portable device (phone or my gateway mp3/wma player) , burn cds ( though no need to ) and play it on 5 machines. 5 machines allows music to be shared on 5 different computers, more then enough. I prefer wma or wmv over any other format as they have better quality. 

    In order for hardware to enforce DRM the media must be DRMed to begin with. So all the illegal content will still be usable while publishers issue DRM content. Who should have a problem with DRM content? The people used to ripping off content providers. I'm sure DRM content will have pretty liberal rights like MSN music has or else they would not like the MSN music service for delivering music.

    My only bad experience with DRM has been the people who cannot implement it as good as Microsoft, aka FullAudio. Formatting your machine with FullAudio licenses is a pita.

    I am a firm beleiver in "monopolies" being good when it comes to software. I never enjoyed having to worry about Netscape vs. IE in the browser war days. Netscape never supported the good stuff. Integration between products tightly can only happen under one roof. If this wasn't true using linux wouldn't be such a pita with the thousand mediocre software projects. All applications that integrate well are made under one roof. For example, office suites, browser/email suites.

    Anyways, the point is I have full trust Microsoft knows what it is doing and i'll still be buying from them till the day i die.
     

     



    I couldn't of said that any better myself!

    Well done, I fully support you!

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    Whats the standard? The document that the w3c writes and calls the standard, or the thing that 95% of people use? Face it - IE is the defacto standard.

    If I have to write code which either adheres rigidly to a written standard, or works in IE, I'll write somthing that works in IE every time - because I want customers. It may not be ideal but hey, thats life.
     
    I honestly could nto give a monkeys if IE is "correct" or not. What would change my mind? A change in the market. But my mum doesnt care if a browser follows w3c standards, and you shouldnt expect her or most other people too either.

  • User profile image
    DoomBringer

    I'm still not sure about DRM.  Of course, all you hear these days is FUD from slashdot morons and a decent amount of marketing speak from Microsoft and others.  All I know is that I can't trust anyone.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Tensor wrote:
    Whats the standard? The document that the w3c writes and calls the standard, or the thing that 95% of people use? Face it - IE is the defacto standard.


    There is no "IE Standard". Code that adheres to the W3C specifications and recommendations will work in all browsers, including IE. If you test and develop your website for IE only, then you're making a shortsighted mistake. Test and develop according to any standards-compliant browser and you'll save time and money (since then you only need to introduce minor hacks to get it work in IE).

    Tensor said:
    If I have to write code which either adheres rigidly to a written standard, or works in IE, I'll write somthing that works in IE every time - because I want customers. It may not be ideal but hey, thats life.


    On all my, and my hosted websites, IE is down to 60% consistently. Why cut out 40%? Wink
     
    Besides, code that meets the W3C specifications is inherently SEO'd. So it would be better to write to XHTML1.1 since:

    • It works in all browsers, including IE
    • Once you fully appreciate and understand the whole system you'll be much faster than if you used a WYSIWYG designer
    • It is forwards compatible.
    People invent excuses like "I want to save time" or "IE is the main browser" are just lying to themselves. By coding according to outdated and/or illegal fashions then you're just making more work for yourself in the future. And who'se to say that IE's market share won't fall even more?

    Tensor wrote:
    I honestly could nto give a monkeys if IE is "correct" or not. What would change my mind? A change in the market. But my mum doesnt care if a browser follows w3c standards, and you shouldnt expect her or most other people too either.


    Your mum will care if she was blind and sites that use tables for layout or sites that aren't correctly and semantically marked-up aren't parseable by her screen-reader.

    ...or if she tried Other Browsers. Wink

    Face it, without the W3C and the specifications for XHTML then we'd be in a bigger mess than we are right now. If Microsoft controlled the HTML standard then the WWW as we know it would no-longer exist. Open standards are a good thing, even if the beuocracy behind them means it takes ages for a standard to be set in stone.

    I'm fully aware I'm a Web-Standards Názi though. Smiley

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    W3bbo wrote:

    On all my, and my hosted websites, IE is down to 60% consistently. Why cut out 40%? Wink


    Because its not 60%. Does your website, perchance, target geeks? Ours doesnt - it targets people who want to spend money. Believe me, amongst those people there are more users of IE 4 than Firefox.
     
    W3bbo wrote:

    • It works in all browsers, including IE
    • Once you fully appreciate and understand the whole system you'll be much faster than if you used a WYSIWYG designer
    • It is forwards compatible.


    I'm not interested in how it looks - I'm interested in making it do what its meant to do, and scale well. To me the rest is bolting boilerplates to the front. Or getting someone else to do it for me.

    W3bbo wrote:

    People invent excuses like "I want to save time" or "IE is the main browser" are just lying to themselves. By coding according to outdated and/or illegal fashions then you're just making more work for yourself in the future. And who'se to say that IE's market share won't fall even more?


    When it is the main browser by a country mile, how is that a lie? "I want to save time" is a perfectly valid argument when your boss says "I need this done by tommorow". It may make more work for the future but if business needs mean I meet my deadlines today by hook or by crook then I'll damn well do it. Because if I keep saying "oh I need a week to learn and employ the technicaly elegant solution" I'll be out of a job.

    W3bbo wrote:

    Your mum will care if she was blind and sites that use tables for layout or sites that aren't correctly and semantically marked-up aren't parseable by her screen-reader.


    Believe me blind people have no interest in my companies website!

    W3bbo wrote:

    ...or if she tried Other Browsers. Wink


    As she is a normal computer user, she has a hard enough time browsing folders. Why would she change browsers when what she has works?

    W3bbo wrote:

    I'm fully aware I'm a Web-Standards Názi though. Smiley


    Enjoy the ivory tower while it lasts!

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.