Because it invites users to break the terms of use for a site and the law, even if they are otherwise responsible and cooperative people and don't realise they would be doing anything wrong by doing so.
Go read the feedback on the issues raised as soon as Chrome did this, and you can see just how widespread a problem this has been for real world site operators and the developers working for them.
More importantly: why would you, given your desire to control presentation to the sending side, use a technology which fundamentally gives that control to the receiving side?
Maybe some people just prefer not to apply heavyweight and possibly broken DRM just to deal with a small minority of users who would abuse less restricted access to the material?
Unfortunately, if the prevailing attitude in this HN discussion is anything to go by, anyone who wants to operate a viable site that way is out of luck, and we should all just assume all users are hostile and restrict them as heavily as possible through whatever legal and technical means are available. That kinda sucks if you actually wanted to be nice about how you ran a site.
It won't be a browser, it will be an app store, or a custom channel for some more restricted device. And these things already exist, and they do remove flexibility we have previously enjoyed on the Web, sometimes under circumstances that would have been useful and not harmed anyone. That is the world people are pushing towards by supporting Google's actions in cases like the one we're talking about.
Because it invites users to break the terms of use for a site and the law, even if they are otherwise responsible and cooperative people and don't realise they would be doing anything wrong by doing so.
Go read the feedback on the issues raised as soon as Chrome did this, and you can see just how widespread a problem this has been for real world site operators and the developers working for them.
More importantly: why would you, given your desire to control presentation to the sending side, use a technology which fundamentally gives that control to the receiving side?
Maybe some people just prefer not to apply heavyweight and possibly broken DRM just to deal with a small minority of users who would abuse less restricted access to the material?
Unfortunately, if the prevailing attitude in this HN discussion is anything to go by, anyone who wants to operate a viable site that way is out of luck, and we should all just assume all users are hostile and restrict them as heavily as possible through whatever legal and technical means are available. That kinda sucks if you actually wanted to be nice about how you ran a site.