231–240 of 1001 posts
For perspective here is W3C CEO's post about it https://www.w3.org/blog/2017/09/reflections-on-the-eme-debat... And Tim Berners Lee's original decision https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2017J...
Here's the press release, with testimonials from the RIAA, MPAA, CableLabs, Netflix, Microsoft and Comcast. https://www.w3.org/2017/09/pressrelease-eme-recommendation.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Mozilla has any integrity, then I suspect Firefox might.
Mozilla opposed EME very strongly. But when it was clear that Google, Microsoft and Apple all supported it and were shipping it, Mozilla was forced to ship it as well (with a flag that makes it easy to disable for users that want to).
If anybody was forcing them, it were the media companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptogtaphically speaking, what is DRM. We want to give an untrusted user access to content, so that they can see it, without giving them access to the content, so they cannot copy it. This is simply impossible in theory. In practice, we can make copying it difficult, possibly resorting to hardware support (so decryption happens in the monitor) and rely on the DMCA to make any attempts to break DRM illegal. Of cours…
> Cryptogtaphically speaking, Honestly, this might be why people aren't on the same wavelength. They're not cryptographically speaking.
In DRM, Alice and Carol are the same person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, I'm sure the enterprises on the W3C who voted for this will jump on board. Oh, you mean I can't get Netflix on the forked internet? Welp, back to mainline.
For me it's the other way around. Netflix is on the other side? Cancel 'em.
Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actively against their interests. Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. So the browser companies support it. It’s not manditory , you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online. If you don’t like DRM then…
> If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal. Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? > They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. Any evidence that they haven't had any success whatsoever in making it harder to save/distribute?
Sure. Search for a recent videogame on pirate bay, download a youtube-to-mp3 browser extension, get the calibre DeDRM plugin. Or, if you really want to understand my point, download and learn how to use a disassembler. For the casual law-abiding user, it succeeds in making it harder to save/distribute. For everyone else, it's only a matter of time before the DRM is broken.
But even if some content is popular, DRM certainly prevents people like me from saving a copy, since I'm not one to go on piracy sites and the only reason I want a copy is so I don't have to get authorization from someone every time I want to play something I already paid for. It might be a dumb business decision since I'd already pay for it before getting a copy anyway, but maybe they think that still makes business sense even if I'd pay for it. Regardless of that it still seems to be working as intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight. They were folding, too.
If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. Sometimes it's wise to retreat or lose a battle to stay in the fight.
They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a ref…
I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists of corruption has also been fairly effective.
For this particular issue, Netflix etc already requires DRM to play in a browser, and the browsers already provide DRM for Netflix etc to use. I would like to understand what the consequences of this decision are, if some of the way this works is standardized. Will this lead to more DRM? Is the only conceivable explanation that the MPAA is slipping the W3C members some bribes?
The saddest part of this story is that Netflix/Amazon/younameit will continue to ignore and block Linux users as the niche market they are -- even if a future Firefox or Chrome version comes with the new standardized DRM everyone asked for. Lose/lose situation.
Tim Berners-Lee must be rolling in his grave.
Tim Berners-Lee isn't dead. And if you read the article, you'll see that he was actually the one who originally overrode the EFF's objections to publishing a DRM standard in the first place.
So Tim Berners-Lee "must be rolling in his grave," quite aside from the fact that he is still physically alive and doing fine.