4 ms·
None of the nightmare scenarios are enabled by this proposal that aren't already possible though. Flash is available and baked in, providers can already run to
by rainforest 13y ago
None of the nightmare scenarios are enabled by this proposal that aren't already possible though.
Flash is available and baked in, providers can already run to DRM-ed content since the ubiquitous platform enables it. It's currently used in part as the solution to the revenue problem.
All these problems already exist, mostly because of Flash. We still have to accept without inspection whatever Adobe sees fit to deliver (which leads to terrible results).
All this proposal really represents is an opportunity to unseat Flash and replace it with a more accountable party to complain to when a device you own can't play the content you buy.
- pornel 13y agoEME is worse than the current situation, because it removes Adobe and Microsoft standing between MPAA's desires and your computer. At least Microsoft and Adobe would refuse to implement DRM that is too user-hostile in order to save their eroding reputation and install base. But with EME you have to run whatever binary Netflix tells you to install, and that will do whatever people who pull the strings on Netflix want.
- rainforest 13y agoThat is a valid point, but I think some power is still retained by the consumer in the sense that they can reject individual DRM implementations and accept others, while with Flash they're forced to install it if one provider they wish to use requires it. The point of user-hostility is the only point that is an obvious problem to me; if the CDM was sandboxed and had a very limited set of access beyond it - pretty much the same environment provided by Flash - I'd be happy.