3 ms·
Why not just fork the W3C's specifications, and pressure FireFox and the makers of other browsers & rendering engines to never incorporate DRM? My personal iss
by Tinned_Tuna 13y ago
Why not just fork the W3C's specifications, and pressure FireFox and the makers of other browsers & rendering engines to never incorporate DRM?
My personal issue here is that it seems that W3C is going against it's own founding principles, running a committee that's biased towards the content-industry.
- gwillen 13y agoBecause you can't pressure Google not to include EME in Chrome, because Google knows which side its bread is buttered on.
- nullc 13y agoThe Pro-DRM side has netflix and a bunch of other DRMed media sites which will work if people switch to Google's Chrome browser or MSIE. Whats your leverage?
- josteink 13y agoIf you are willing to install various random black-box binaries from random pages on the internet. We saw how well that played out with ActiveX. This is pretty much the same, just even less open-source friendly, since the intent is the deprive the machine running the code of access to the content. Let's not make a rerun of that. The second this goers mainstream expect a bunch of free "porn sites" saying you need to install their "DRM plugin" to view the content. And voila you have browser-assisted trojan installations. Firefox and other browsers supporting the open-web, without DRM, will have leverage that it doesn't ship with a gaping open door for spyware, malware and viruses to enter. It will be the only browser with the user's interest in mind. We've already seen how Google is abandoning that in Chrome. This will only make it more apparent.