7 ms·
Well that's an awfully uncharitable title. Isn't it possible he simply thinks EME is a better alternative than Flash/Silverlight? Because I sure do.
by SquareWheel 9y ago
Well that's an awfully uncharitable title. Isn't it possible he simply thinks EME is a better alternative than Flash/Silverlight? Because I sure do.
- le-mark 9y agoFortunately the article is more even handed than the title and cites two broad issues with this: > First, the question of whether or not EME even needs to be in HTML at all. Many -- even those who dislike DRM -- have argued that it was kind of necessary. The underlying argument here is that certain content producers would effectively abandon the web without EME being in HTML5. > The second issue is much more problematic. A bunch of W3C members had made a clear proposal that if EME is included, there should be a covenant that W3C members will not sue security researchers under Section 1201 of the DMCA should they crack any DRM. There is no reason not to support this. Security researchers should be encouraged to be searching for vulnerabilities in DRM and encryption in order to better protect us all.
- edraferi 9y agoAdding legal agreements into a technical standard is tricky. Security researchers absolutely need protection, but it should be addressed at via legislation. There needs to be a clear way to distinguish security research from malicious hacking that applies across technologies.
- syshum 9y agoFat chance that happening, if anything we will see increased restriction on who is allowed and not allowed to "research" security limited to only government approved contractors that file for permission to do with the FBI
- kuschku 9y agoIt's not a better alternative, because it makes DRM too easily accessible. Many companies that would never have used Flash for DRM are now using EME or considering it. Including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. In a few years every video on the web will use DRM, and you won't even be able to download YouTube videos.
- SquareWheel 9y agoA platform being simple to implement doesn't seem like a good argument against that platform, even if you dislike it for other reasons.
- meesterdude 9y agoif that platform is anti-social, you want to raise the barrier for entry, not lower it.
- lordlimecat 9y agoIf the platform is obnoxious, people will abandon it for other alternatives. You know, like the crappy ones (flash, silverlight) we've been trying to ditch for a decade now.
- karmadog 9y agoIf that's what content creators want, isn't it in their right? You're technically not allowed to download YouTube videos anyway, there just isn't a convenient measure against it. You're not paying, you're probably blocking ads and now you want to download stuff for free? You're worthless to creators. Also, you're not getting to see all the videos that aren't on Youtube exactly because there is no DRM.
- mnarayan01 9y ago> If that's what content creators want, isn't it in their right? Absolutely. That's not particularly relevant to the normative question of whether the HTML standard should make adding DRM less of a pain point though.
- AlexandrB 9y ago> If that's what content creators want, isn't it in their right? No, because DRM + DMCA has repeatedly been used to violate consumers' and researchers' fair use rights. It's my right to lock my house, unless you're inside it and I'm effectively turning it into a prison.