261–266 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then it's trivial for the DRM creator to sue you under the DMCA. I also suspect that CDMs can update (this is called "renewability" in DRM newspeak).
If the reversing and reimplementation happens outside of the US you can avoid the DMCA issue entirely. Or take steps to publish anonymously.
Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins . The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do. The l…
I have to agree... in the end, if you can't access Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, etc, the majority of people won't use your browser. In order to succeed, imho, you need a great base UI, good support for emerging standards and to support the sites that people use most... Facebook, Google, YouTube and Netflix. At least EME lets all browsers stand a chance of being able to use all the sites they want to use. And as much…
So here I have my shiny new browser. I implemented all the relevant standards. Now, how can my users access Netflix? They can't, not unless I can strike a deal with one of the CDM providers, who, incidentally, for the most part are browser vendors themselves, i.e. my competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree, but isn't it plausible that a centralized standard allows DRM to become more prevalent? Right now lots of copyright-able content is begrudgingly released freely to attract eyeballs, but that could decrease if DRM becomes more seamless.
The DRM makers still have to write, ship, and get people to install the decryption piece - EME just gives it hooks into the browser (and allows said plugin to be appropriately sandboxed, restricted, and treated like the hostile black box piece of crap that it is). So in other words, probably not any more than the current system.
See about:plugins on Chrome to see for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah but so? from my read-through, its not literally "save the one and only firefox", its "we need an environment that allows for other browsers to enter the field" which DRM prevents
Does EME prevent new browsers from implementing it freely. I admit I haven't read the spec but from what I've read second-hand, it seems like it enables the vendor to ship the DRM code as a binary blob that runs natively in a sandbox. As I understand, EME doesn't lockout new browsers , it locks out new architectures and kernels. But any new architecture that comes along that anyone would want to use to view DRM-encum…
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
ctrl+f for "What does this mean for downstream users of the Firefox code base?"
tl;dr you either need to run a mozilla-built sandbox with no modifications, or literally call up adobe and ask about being given a CDM for your own browser, which they might just scoff at
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that argument was supposed to mean anything then DRM would only be required in the first few weeks after release. And it assumes that it currently takes weeks before new content makes it to torrent sites, which is not the case.
Years ago, Ian Hickson wrote a perfect analysis of why we have DRM. It's as relevant as ever, and anyone should read it. https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
The first is that controlling the market for players isn't a legitimate purpose. You can't go to a court or Congress and say "we need DRM so we can monopolize and exercise market power in the market for DVD players and web browsers." It isn't supposed to do that, even if it does. So if the studios won't admit to that as its purpose then the people who want to get rid of DRM can easily win the argument against the lie they claim is its purpose. But if they do admit that its purpose is monopolization they also lose, because in that case it is effective but not legitimate. This is, incidentally, the reason why many suspect the reason we still have DRM has something to do with government corruption.
And the second problem is that controlling the market for players doesn't actually do them any good. It is the thing that causes them harm. Making the user experience worse is how you lose customers to piracy (and legitimate competitors).
And it gives power to people they don't want it to. If you buy $2000 worth of content on iTunes and the content providers demand that you re-purchase it if you switch platforms, that doesn't get you to re-purchase it, it gets you to not switch platforms. Which gives the platform providers more leverage over the content providers, because now they have captive users. If you're Fox or Paramount, you do not want your position with respect to Apple to be the one software developers have to the App Store.
DRM is a footgun. It's the opposite of "commoditize your complements." [1] We should get rid of it.
[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the reversing and reimplementation happens outside of the US you can avoid the DMCA issue entirely. Or take steps to publish anonymously.
You probably should also give up on going to any conferences on US soil in the future.