3 ms·

<Redacted>

• snissn 10y ago
  From another comment, don't necessarily think of the dilemma of a netflix user, or internet browser, instead think of the of the blow to the openness of the next person that wants to make a brand new web browser. For the new browser to fully compete, they now /NEED/ to set up a closed relationship with netflix, the drm provider, the other browsers. If it was an open standard, they could simply code the crypto algorithms that the standard needs and not need to get permission for the closed drm formats.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • openasocket 10y ago
    So what's the alternative, exactly? Before EME, you needed Flash or Silverlight to view DRM-ed content like netflix. Someone making a brand new web browser would similarly need to support a Flash plugin or Silverlight plugin to compete. Such a developer could choose not to bother with a Flash or Silverlight plugin, but couldn't they also choose not to bother to implement EME? What's changed?
• __jal 10y ago
  > it's a good compromise in a capitalist society where artists need to make money for what they produce in order to feed themselves Funny, I haven't heard many artists clamoring for DRM, and the ones who do tend to be well beyond the feeding-themselves step on Maslow's Hierarchy. No, it is, as always, the distributors. That's because DRM hurts artists but entrenches distributors. It is a shitty compromise because it is the start of a closed web. Enjoy your view-source while your corporate overlords deign to give you permission.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]