3 ms·

How is it a criminal offence to implement a content protection scheme? Who's permission does one need? If I write a content protection scheme that runs everyth

• Daiz 13y ago
  Because if you don't have a permission to do so, you're basically 'circumventing' DRM which is illegal under copyright laws in many countries around the world.
  • jiggy2011 13y ago
    Why would I need permission to implement my own CDM? I would not be circumventing unless I attempted to reverse engineer someone elses.
    • vetinari 13y ago
      Is for implementing someone's other CDM. It's the "your browser is great, but I cannot watch Hulu in it, therefore it is unusable" scenario.
      • jiggy2011 13y ago
        Why would you implement it yourself? Just integrate this standard and now your browser can talk to Hulu's CDM.
        • vetinari 13y ago
          The CDMs are not OS independent. This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owner may not bother with porting ("not enough market share for you").
          • jiggy2011 13y ago
            True, but that's basically the same situation that you have right now.
            • vetinari 13y ago
              Not really. The situation now is labeled "proprietary", the situation then will be "we just use standards". It shifts the framing.
              • jiggy2011 13y ago
                Why would that be a problem?
                • div 13y ago
                  Because then the standards would no longer be open.
          • deleted 13y ago
            [deleted]