6 ms·
> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standa
by hugoroy 13y ago
> Hollywood doesn't need nor care about the web or the w3c apart from as a marketing avenue. They would be just as happy delivering all content through a standalone application, as they are doing currently.
If they do not care, why are they pushing for getting a W3C stamp on their DRM system?
> There are no "CDMs in HTML5" , this is a nonesense statement.
To accept EME because proprietary CDM are outside of the spec is pure hypocrisy. To say that EME is okay because it would be working with clear-key systems too is complete BS, because such systems already exist and do not need EME. Hence the EME spec is only here to get standardised API for proprietary CDMs, which is why no one else but Hollywood, Netflix and Google & al. are pushing for this.
I would not care about EME, if they were not trying to integrate that into the W3C, which should stand for an open web, where free technologies are on equal footing with proprietary ones. EME would de facto force web users to have proprietary software installed in the form of CDM (which is DRM). Unacceptable.
- jiggy2011 13y agoIt doesn't force you to install anything, if you don't want DRMd content don't install the DRM.. There is nothing in the spec that mandates you install a proprietary CDM.
- hugoroy 13y agoThe spec without CDM does not do anything at all. This spec goes hand-in-hand with having a proprietary CDM. So ultimately, standardising this at the W3C means having all open web users install a proprietary CDM. Again, if this whole debate was outside discussing open web standards, this would be valid. But what we're discussing here is inclusion or not in open web standards.