3 ms·
Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the C
by jflatow 10y ago
Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the CDM a blackbox, e.g. just by issuing license keys and standardizing the encryption/decryption of content. It seems like the only benefit to making CDMs blackboxes is that it gives publishers more control over the user's environment.
- Klathmon 10y agoLooking at that from a publishers perspective... That locks me in to your encryption system, and probably locks me into other things as a result. That also doesn't give me the ability to enforce other DRM things like only one playback per device, or only allowing it to happen between 7am and 7pm, it also means that i need to trust the client, whih is exactly what DRM is trying to not do (because if the publishers could trust the client, an HTML flag for "don't let them save this" would suffice.) DRM by nature basically needs to be a black box. This just standardized how that black box hooks into the system, and sandboxes it to limit what it can look at (and so we don't have a repeat of the Sony music issues)
- jflatow 10y agoWe know that this is something the publisher's want. That doesn't mean CDM functionality can't be standardized. It doesn't need to be a black box, and you don't need to trust the client any more than you trust the user. The point EFF is making is that its up to the W3C to maintain the balance between the power of publishers and the freedom of users.
- jflatow 10y agoEDIT: What I failed to realize is that unlike other content, in the case of DRM, publishers do not even trust the user. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11680863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11680863