3 ms·
> It is vague paranoia. You're still just throwing out rhetoric without any concrete reasons. It doesn't harm user freedom, I don't know how to express this any
by rb12345 14y ago
> It is vague paranoia. You're still just throwing out rhetoric without any concrete reasons. It doesn't harm user freedom, I don't know how to express this any clearer: "THEY'RE ALREADY DISTRIBUTING THROUGH DRM-ENABLED PLUGINS". All this would do is standardize it and allow users to access DRM content from website like hulu/netflix without needing two different private closed-source plugins.
The only way to get DRM to work is to require a closed-source browser. If you implement your DRM in open-source browser code, that code will almost certainly end up patched to produce decrypted/unprotected output and the patch would then be redistributed.
Ultimately, you cannot combine technology that prevents the end user from doing what they want with open-source software that attempts to guarantee such rights.
- gph 14y agoI agree that would be a problem, but I understand there would be a way to implement the current proposal without requiring a browser to be closed source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5232033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5232033 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... It's not a perfect method, it would require some additional potentially closed-source OS-level software to be installed for the browser to interact with. But people who don't want it don't have to get it, and the browser can implement the standard without becoming closed-source.
- rb12345 14y agoThat's also true, but as you point out, still requires a closed-source or a hardware DRM decoder to avoid kernel-level attacks. That would seem to rule out Linux support even if Windows or OS X Firefox/Chrome can safely use it.