Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I can appreciate where you're coming from. It's now in my computer and you don't get to reach in and control things on me.

But I'm not so sure that's actually fair and reasonable. If I rent you a VHS, once it's in your house, is it your right to consume as you wish? Do you get to make a copy to watch at a future date? Maybe I don't want that. Maybe the contract I make with you is that you can purchase a loan of this VHS to watch over the next few days.

Maybe when I host your favourite music videos, I don't want you copying to your disk to watch hundreds of times without seeing any ads.




Why should enforcing your wishes (or even your contractual agreements with the viewer) be Google's problem?


Enforcing your wishes isn't Google's problem, but actively interfering in a commercial relationship between two other parties might be.


Using the video analogy, your VHS player still has a record button. Video rentals discourage copying by showing anti-piracy notices. So perhaps websites should show notices like that too "Don't press download. You might break the law".


A lot of sites do have models along those lines. Think pay-per-view sporting events, Netflix-style subscription libraries, and so on.

The biggest problem here was that when Google suddenly moved the goalposts, a lot of users assumed it was now OK to download and save stuff anyway. They don't understand that it's a browser update they didn't know anything about that made the change, not the web site they're visiting.

A lot of people complain about moves to incorporate DRM as an official web standard, but it's the sites that haven't who got screwed on this one. It's rather disappointing to see so many people on HN apparently supporting the "I've got it now, it's mine whatever" attitude you'd expect on Slashdot. It's hardly the way to promote either useful new business models or businesses trusting their customers rather than slapping the strongest DRM they can find on everything.


serving content on a website that is open-access is not a contractual agreement, it is a "free offer, no conditions whatsoever".


No, it isn't. That is simply wrong, as a matter of law, almost everywhere.

Moreover, you're ignoring all the sites that provide video via web pages that aren't freely accessible.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: