121–130 of 314 posts
Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?
I don't mean this as a defense of EME, but I think this is more rabble-rousing and fear mongering than anything else. What the EFF and this article are saying is that EME opens the door for this kind of stuff to make its way to the spec. EME on its own does absolutely none of this. EME is not DRM. It's a standard spec for plugins that provide DRM. Essentially it means that someone like Netflix could still use the HTM…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anyone said that the DRM code will be closed source. You don't complain when you can't decrypt PGP, even though PGP implementations are open source. This is the same thing.
If it's open source, I can just swoop in, inject some code and make a copy of the decrypted data stream for 'archival purposes'. Won't take a day for a PoC. I can still do this with closed source DRM blobs, but it will take much longer. And there will probably be pointless anti-debugger tricks, system wide hooks that break countless other software, kernel drivers that BSoD your system.. That is precisely why this pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. But we do, and so just as you say there are "legitimate reasons" why someone may wish to save a video, there are too "legitimate reasons" someone may want to share their work in a protected manner. It's a product. If you don't like it don't buy it. There is no part of this that forces the user to view only DRM…
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. Excellent news! So it's ok if I copy the images, CSS and HTML on your landing page for your employer for my competitor, then? Edit: I'm obviously not serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had my way we wouldn't have copyright at all. It seems idiotic to me for the same reasons patents are. Excellent news! So it's ok if I copy the images, CSS and HTML on your landing page for your employer for my competitor, then? Edit: I'm obviously not serious.
I wouldn't recommend it: the name and logo are trademarked, and even if you replaced those, if anyone noticed the rest of the copying, you'd be the laughingstock of the internet. Who'd want to buy your product then?
I wish a browser vendor would step up and say no to this. As in "we won't support a DRM future in the browser". Firefox, Chrome?
The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]: "A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's…
This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc. The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets…
If anything this is worse than proprietary plugins because those used documented APIs that any browser could support, whereas this is integrated into the web browser itself.