4 ms·

The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both brows

by walid 13y ago

The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both browsers are open source. HTML5 DRM will only stop people from using regular copy/paste. I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.

ivanca 13y ago
Yeah, only time will tell us if watching sitcoms on the browser is really worth to lose an open internet. </sarcasm>
duncan_bayne 13y ago
The issue is that the CDMs with which the sites integrate simply won't be made available on certain platforms. E.g. Netflix isn't available on Linux, and there's no evidence that the availability of EME would change that.
fafner 13y ago
That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the EFF is absolutely not over-reacting. 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...
- walid 13y ago
  I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company, namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser. This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind. To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?
walid 13y ago
I disagree with all of you previous commentators. DRM in the browser already exists and it is called Flash. This is also the reason why Adobe is still supporting Flash and wants to bring it to other platforms other than the browser. http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html As for Netflix on Linux, they want to make money and will have to make it available if they want Linux customers. Remember that nothing is going to stop Netflix or anybody else from making their media incompatible with your setup, so the keys are already in their hands. On the other hand demanding freedom and openness from organizations that only want to make money is useless. Just ask for your platform to be supported and pay them when they do. Otherwise no one is going to take a second look at you no matter how loud you shout.

by walid 13y ago

ivanca 13y ago

Yeah, only time will tell us if watching sitcoms on the browser is really worth to lose an open internet. </sarcasm>

duncan_bayne 13y ago

The issue is that the CDMs with which the sites integrate simply won't be made available on certain platforms. E.g. Netflix isn't available on Linux, and there's no evidence that the availability of EME would change that.

fafner 13y ago

That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the EFF is absolutely not over-reacting. 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...

walid 13y ago
I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company, namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser. This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind. To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?

walid 13y ago

I disagree with all of you previous commentators. DRM in the browser already exists and it is called Flash. This is also the reason why Adobe is still supporting Flash and wants to bring it to other platforms other than the browser. http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html As for Netflix on Linux, they want to make money and will have to make it available if they want Linux customers. Remember that nothing is going to stop Netflix or anybody else from making their media incompatible with your setup, so the keys are already in their hands. On the other hand demanding freedom and openness from organizations that only want to make money is useless. Just ask for your platform to be supported and pay them when they do. Otherwise no one is going to take a second look at you no matter how loud you shout.