3 ms·
> That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP and EME, but that's not the world we live in. My argument weren't with regards to DRM. Simply with rega
by colde 9y ago
> That argument may have worked in a world without HDCP and EME, but that's not the world we live in.
My argument weren't with regards to DRM. Simply with regards to performance, since we are talking quite a few more bits than 1080p. Indeed HDCP and especially EME has been great for enabling better playback experiences in browsers. But that still doesn't help with support for H.265 and for the increased bitrates needed for 4K.
- cyphar 9y agoMy point was that not all reasons for degrading of playback are benign. HDCP has those requirements specifically to coerce users into purchasing HDCP-compliant hardware in order to be able to restrict their viewing of media. Whether or not you agree with DRM (I certainly don't), "technical limitations" is not a panacea for all of the shady things that the DRM cabal is doing. At some point you have to say flat-out that you have no problem with artificially limiting what content users can access, and removing their agency to view content they've rightfully purchased (or exercise their rights under copyright law such as public domain and fair use). While it might be "just" video and audio today, the future doesn't look bright from my perspective (not to mention that YouTube has shown to be a very strong platform for independent media).