101–110 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Chrome for my flash garbage. Its much better than taking my current browsers resources and bogging it down
Exactly this! I use Firefox for everything but Flash websites, and Chrome only for those because the frozen Linux Flash player is a broken POS.
> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all
To make a possibly-emotionally-charged analogy, it's like patent licenses for free software. In a perfect world, software patents wouldn't exist. But in the world we live in now, you cannot build practical systems without acknowledging that they do exist and they need to be dealt with, and that you need to be as clear about patent rights as you are about copyright. So e.g. the Apache License and GPLv3 have some text about software patents and how they interact. It is hugely important for some people (depending on their jurisdiction, quality of counsel, amount they care, etc.) that they use licenses like those that acknowledge software patents. That's not to say that software patents are inherently useful, and certainly we should work towards a world where they're not, but if you're building a real project, you have to work with the world as it is.
In the world we live in, the people who own the content that lots of people want to see have decided that they care about DRM. Whether they should care about DRM (or whether the viewers should want to view that content, for that matter) is beside the point for the discussion of whether DRM is currently useful. By all means—including the means of making DRM technically cumbersome—convince them to stop caring about DRM. But the ability to provide DRM is, unfortunately, useful today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix begs to differ.
With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability. EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.
> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions. DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all
The whole reason for Flash's tenacity in the video market was its thorough support for DRM. This is decidedly _not_ an advantage of HTML5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix begs to differ.
With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability. EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.
Piracy [probably] isn't a problem for you, but if you think it isn't a problem at all, then you should read this:
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-...
> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow
I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's a tool of corrupted groups for standards poisoning, market control and "creative" undemocratic lawmaking.
I've heard that many CDNs are still lagging to adopt DASH, and it causes a major problem for any service which wants to implement HTML5 video (DASH + Media Source Extensions). How does it work for Youtube, do they simply run their own CDN? > DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's…
Yes, the Google CDN (Google owns Youtube).
Meanwhile, Chrome shows it blocked flash from loading for the bitmovin site.
?
This was on Firefox by the way.
I've heard that many CDNs are still lagging to adopt DASH, and it causes a major problem for any service which wants to implement HTML5 video (DASH + Media Source Extensions). How does it work for Youtube, do they simply run their own CDN? > DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's…
> Youtube, do they simply run their own CDN Yes, the Google CDN (Google owns Youtube).
