11–20 of 280 posts
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
I vote for the hard way.
when I first heard of DRM in HTML5, the first thing that came to mind was that web apps would be encrypted, and that the only interface people would have would be mouse or touch. This would essentially make the web like blue-ray: great for consuming content and playing scripted games, and not-so-great for everyone else. Also, how long before "safe" browsers only allowed drm-encrypted web apps, to "protect consumers"?…
That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive.
Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
And this proposal involves DRM implemented with proprietary plugins (known as CDMs). There is no requirement that CDMs be available across platforms, on open operating systems, available to license by any vendor. The CDMs are the new proprietary plugins, they just happen to do less than Flash, leaving more of it up to the browser.
Is it really so much better to trade one proprietary form of DRM for another? What does that actually get us? More crappy services, where Hollywood decides on a month by month basis which particular services get to offer its content, so you need to sign up for 5 different services just to watch all of the content that you watch? And each one of them supports different set-top boxes, doesn't work on open platforms, and restricts you from backing up media that you have bought?
This isn't improvement; this is just wanting to get browser vendors to implement anti-features that users object to, instead of getting Adobe to do it.
when I first heard of DRM in HTML5, the first thing that came to mind was that web apps would be encrypted, and that the only interface people would have would be mouse or touch. This would essentially make the web like blue-ray: great for consuming content and playing scripted games, and not-so-great for everyone else. Also, how long before "safe" browsers only allowed drm-encrypted web apps, to "protect consumers"?…
"Why the movie industry have protection but we don't? We need HTML5 DRM in our writings, is our copyright less important than theirs? I say no sir!"
And slowly an internet where you can't use browser extensions, where you can't copy anything you read, where you depend on the existence of a company, a functional internet connection to play (just once) the content you bought, but a content that you certainly don't own.
I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.