3 ms·
I'm starting to come over on your side a little bit. I don't care as much about DRM as you do, but I do care about breaking the Web. I'm not convinced this doe
by MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I'm starting to come over on your side a little bit. I don't care as much about DRM as you do, but I do care about breaking the Web. I'm not convinced this does that though.
To support this a user agent will need to implement one or more CDM that may include communicating with a DRM chip. For devices without the chip the web page won't render properly. We agree that this is undesirable, but it doesn't seem any different to me than the Capture API[1] that only works on devices with a camera or microphone.
Convince me, I'm leaning towards your position here.
[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/
- dchest 15y agoThis is a good argument. I think the difference is that without camera there's absolutely no other technical way a website (that uses cameras) can provide their services. It's an enabling technology, in a sense that it moves progress forward. With DRM chip, there is the other way -- streaming video without restrictions.
- nitrogen 15y agoOne can always simulate a camera or microphone. Maybe you're mute, and you use text to speech software that presents itself to the OS APIs underlying the Capture API as a microphone. Enshrining technology that has no other purpose than to restrict access to one's own computer into an international "open" standard is unacceptable. At some level in hardware or software there will always be a closed blob to prevent capturing the stream, so there will never be an open software and hardware implementation. Giving DRM the blessing of the international web community is, effectively, giving Hollywood unfettered permission to be just as obstinate, manipulative, and anti-consumerist as ever.