That's a very principled position but it should not surprise you that any position with 'make things shittier for users' as a key component is unlikely to be well-received by any and all of: standards bodies, browser vendors, content providers, website developers, users, sane people and many others.
Content providers have happily made experience utterly shitty by adding DRM with no regards to users. I don't think they care about your experience a lot.
They seem to care quite a bit. For instance, browser-based DRM and constrained devices have made the experience vastly better than it was just a few years ago. No plugins, you can download content for offline viewing, etc. So I'm not really seeing how they're making it utterly shitty.
How is not being able to download files at all, not being able to just move them to another device and being forced to have a n internet connection to watch HDR Blu-Rays a better experience than just double clicking a mp4 file?
You're not forced the have an internet connection to watch UHD Blu-rays.
The spec allows a disc to require it, but it not a single disc has ever turned it on. It was also in the blu-ray spec, and not a single disc ever turned it on there either.
Sure, but for the vast majority of users, the experience is much better. You can certainly argue that they should care more about minority users such as yourself (and me, Linux desktop user here), but it's a hard sell when the cost of the development and maintenance effort exceeds the revenue brought in.
I don't think there's a great solution here. Content producers believe that DRM reduces copyright infringement to a level that they're at least somewhat comfortable with. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant; it's how they feel about it that matters. Making playback harder for the average customer isn't in anyone's best interests.
This started with someone claiming what should happen is DRM'ed video streaming should be made a difficult and unpleasant experience. Standards bodies and implementors aren't going to do that. What's more, their collective efforts have made the usability better, the availability of content better and as a free bonus, the security is better. That's all.
> DRM'ed video streaming should be made a difficult and unpleasant experience.
why can't DRM'ed video be difficult and unpleasant, but DRM-free videos be made much easier to implement, and have smooth experience for end users?
Why is DRM-free a non-starter? The whole point i wanted to make is that by making DRM'ed video easier to deploy (and consume), it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_. Why are standards bodies putting in standards that consumers wouldn't ordinarily chooses, and is only meant to appease businesses? Why couldn't they be more socially oriented, such that anti-consumer mechanisms aren't added to an open standard?
Imagine if it weren't DRM, but anti-adblocking? What if the web standards bodies were attempting to prevent adblocking in a browser, in such a way that to be a compliant browser, you can't possibly intercept content? How is that any different to this DRM standard?
That ship has long, long sailed and, despite all predictions to the contrary, has actually been pretty good for users. Again, it's you who suggested everyone should stop and shittify the existing user experience that most people like. That's neither realistic nor constructive.
Earlier this year I downloaded a season of a TV show I wanted to catch up on, into Google Play on my tablet. A few weeks later I was on a plane, and finally had a chance to watch them. Google Play had blithely decided to save space (possibly prompted by the OS) and had removed my downloads.
If they weren't DRMed I would have just downloaded them into space I control and there would have been none of this "oh he's not interested" BS guessing.
I deal with this kind of bovine exhaust regularly.
So, hell, no, DRM has NOT IN ANY WAY been good for me. ANYTHING that makes DRM less viable is an absolute good. Period.
