If they allow pre-processor plugins on-demand, similar to how JS works via an Native Client (NaCl) system, it could very well be seamless in the next round of modern browsers. (IE11, Chrome 30, etc). As long as it can be done as an inline pre-processor it could integrate seamlessly, be custom to that site and license, and still work towards stopping recording (though a screen capture, and virtual sound card could still do it, but we'll pretend that DRM actually works)... My goal wouldn't be to stop DRM, but to make it so seamless for content streaming, that it doesn't get in your way. Second to that is keeping it in the browser tab/view, and out of your OS level... where it is nicely sandboxed, and reduced as a potential attack vector.
I do appreciate seeing Netflix in on the discussion, since they are probably the single biggest instance of DRM licensed content. They are kind of stuck in the middle, of wanting to offer content/services to users, and having to appease the content gods requiring DRM schemes. There's enough trouble in even getting content licenses, without DRM would make it far too difficult at this time.
My biggest concern here is that they avoid the OS level plugin systems of old. I thought that NaCl was a good idea when released, and if integrated seamlessly could be very good... worst you would have to do is "close the tab" to get out of a rogue site... instead of it infecting your system with malware. Further, there has been a lot of effort in terms of improving security with JS integration, and using the same API interfaces for video/audio pre-processing combined with something like NaCl could be good, without the need for full-os level integration.
I do *not* want to see another Silverlight/Moonlight instance where MS licenses the codecs for non-windows (and mac), but without any DRM, effectively making it useless for people on linux, or generic STBs (set-top-boxes, Raspberry Pi, etc) wanting to access content sites like Netflix.
The irony, is depending on your site, even having ads on some areas can lose you sales/content. I've been pushing for removing/reducing ads in certain click-through pages, such as on search results, because in the end, my theory is that we'll get more page views on those pages that are more important to the user... the final pages after searching. It's worth noting that this is for a popular classifieds site, and the ads do account for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the revenue most months, so removing them all around isn't an option, but making them less invasive, and better performing is a good idea. In a single-page app/site, we've actually gone to serving/tracking our own ads in terms of a branded experience where ads are paid for by the minute up to 5 min/user... which is working pretty interestingly. There are lots of options beyond being too intrusive with ads and still having them.
Honestly, I was purchasing a few CDs a week when the original Napster was popular.. it was a great way to get new music, and sample an album before buying... maybe I was downloading more than I was buying.. now, I just don't do much if any of it.. I'll maybe buy 2CDs a year on average now.
Same thing with DRM and video games... used to be at least a game a month, now it's been a few years, aside from the humble bundles.
They could very easily send the comment-id, parent-comment-id, the public display name... another export with display-name, salt, sha-256(salt+email-address), and the comment text...
This would allow a user to create a new account on the new site, and could then hash the desired username and email address.. if the name & email (hashed) matches the existing entry, you can attach that user... no privacy lost.
This would also allow you to preserve the comments, with display name.. and allow users to re-claim their comments/accounts... That's a solution off the top of my head that should be easy enough to implement.
I had a GF forced to pay that much for a couple books and some specialized software for one of her courses (that would only really be used for that one semester). (That's total for that course's requirements, not each piece, but still).
An event in nature should not be patentable... A specific method of influencing said events could be. In this instance the gene itself, or it's effects in various states should not be patentable... that is simply observation. A specific, proven technique for changing said gene in a living being should probably be.
I've been known to have a map up on my phone and look at that while driving... I've also, in the past, written down/printed similar items. Today's cars have built-in bluetooth, as well as sat-nav. Will they be illegal too soon... I was in my first accident in 17 years last year while I had an incoming call, and looked over to see who it was from... Traffic suddenly stopped in front of me, *wham*
It happens, it could just as easily have been a kid asking a question in the rear seat, or any number of other distractions. It's a matter of being prudent/responsible while driving, not outlawing anything that might be too much of a distraction...
Separate compartments for every passenger, people. Then your hands strapped to the steering wheel, with your head in a bit of a vice... only safe way to go.
I think this trend may go the other way... the judges in East Texas seem to be coming up to speed on technology... I'm surprised there isn't a legal precedent for having the venue changed, when both parties are in a different state than where filed.
Or in the 2004 elections where "MoveOn.org" reps posed as voting aids with lists of democrat voters turned away those "not on the list" at voting locations. (Happened at my voting district, and several were arrested)
If a public speaker (congressional rep) within the state says something over a mic+speaker (electronic device), that annoys me, or is intended to annoy me or anyone else.. can I then sue? Can they be charged?
On the same note, the hotel doesn't get to quadruple capacity for near zero cost, and an airline does not either... if either of these were the case, and a hotel chain could simply TARDIS up some extra rooms for almost nothing, you bet people would probably expect nearly free rooms.
There is nothing artificially scarce about the number of rooms in a hotel, or seats on a plane... If a flight is nearly empty, airlines will often consolidate flights to save expenses, and hotels will very often drop their rates during off seasons, or ofter more exceptional breaks when they have shortages for the current night.
It costs a few cents (literally less than 10) to distribute a song on iTunes. But they complain that the cost is too low, and their cut isn't high enough. Apple earns $0.30 using their dime's worth of infrastructure... The studios get $0.70 (minus about $0.12 if they pay the royalties as a sale like they're supposed to), for no extra work. But they still complain.
iTunes absolutely shows you can compete with free. Music piracy has dropped through the floor, and made Apple one of the largest companies on the planet all from offering a product at reasonable rates (to most). You will never eliminate piracy, and you will never satisfy everyone. They key is allowing for a market balance with the lowest possible total expense, and the highest possible total profit. iTunes does that.. suing MegaUpload, and other sites does not. SOPA/PIPA/PPA/etc do nothing towards competing or making money... all they will do is raise the burden on the public as a whole (government regulation, enforcement, etc cost money). I think that studios/corporations should have to pay "property taxes" for intellectual property.