3 ms·
Yes it would - but that's how all DRM systems work, plus an attempt to make the image unreadable to "unauthorized" JPEG implementations.
by TD-Linux 11y ago
Yes it would - but that's how all DRM systems work, plus an attempt to make the image unreadable to "unauthorized" JPEG implementations.
- bediger4000 11y agoHow, if some Future JPEG (FJPEG) is a standard, does one make a standard FJPEG image unreadable to unauthorized FJPEG implementations? Either the standard itself has to be kept secret or the FJPEG implementation has to contain some secret, right? If the standard is kept secret, by maybe charging a tidy sum for it, and getting all buyers to sign an NDA in blood, we'll all have fewer implementations of FJPEG viewers. There would probably be no "open source" implementations of FJPEG. We would all loose, as the market for FJPEG viewers has barriers to entry, and therefore would serve buyers poorly. That's standard, Free Market economics. If FJPEG viewers have to contain some secret (an algorithm or a key both come to mind as things that have happened in the past) the same sorts of things happen - barriers to entry to sell in the market, higher costs, fewer options to consumers. Of course the 3rd option is to legally mandate some kind of overall DRM at the operating system level, which would have much the same effects, except that we'd have a narrow choice of Windows or Mac OS, with maybe a larger choice of FJPEG viewers. All of these options should be repugnant to Free Market believers such as myself. I predict the Republican Congress will laugh this out the door.
- airza 11y agoJust like they did with the DMCA, right?
- bediger4000 11y agoI'm sorry, but could you elaborate on this? I'm not understanding the connection with DMCA.
- TD-Linux 11y agoYeah, those are the only options. The second option is what Blu-Ray and EME currently do, for example. But yeah, basically no one is going to use this ever.