4 ms·

Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?

by oonny 13y ago

davexunit 13y ago
And terrible news for all users.
- oonny 13y ago
  how so? I really don't get it. how is moving from a plugin (flash/sliverlight) to html5 a bad thing as long as you can protect your content?
  - davexunit 13y ago
    Because I think "protect" is propaganda in this context. Digital restrictions management is harmful to users.
jimktrains2 13y ago
Sure, but is it good news for the users?
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Yeah, sure. Some sort of somewhat effective anti digital copying mechanism is a great way to enable video rentals on general purpose computers (especially given the pervasive copyright regime of modern video content). There are issues to come when consumers only have access to encumbered media, but at the moment, they pretty clearly benefit from the access.
  - smosher 13y ago
    > they pretty clearly benefit from the access Speaking of access, make sure you have the SonyⓇ RootKit™ Updater installed.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    Them: You can watch this (shitty) movie in exchange for your freedom. You: Sure! Me: No way!
maxk42 13y ago
We can and should let them die.
wmf 13y ago
Distributors may not be happy once they discover that Safari supports FairPlay DRM, Chrome supports Widevine DRM, IE supports WMDRM, Samsung phones support SamDRM, HTC phones couldn't afford to license any DRM, etc.
- makomk 13y ago
  Yeah. Also, there's no requirement for the different DRM schemes to support the same codecs or containers or encryption schemes, so potentially they'll have to re-encode all their content for each scheme. It's actually less standardized than pay TV encryption believe it or not! Edit: The interface between the DRM servers and your backend code isn't standardized either, so content providers still have to do a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific development work. Basically, they standardized just enough to allow sites with DRM to claim they're 100% HTML5, it barely improves interoperability at all.

Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?

by oonny 13y ago

Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?

davexunit 13y ago

And terrible news for all users.

oonny 13y ago
how so? I really don't get it. how is moving from a plugin (flash/sliverlight) to html5 a bad thing as long as you can protect your content?
- davexunit 13y ago
  Because I think "protect" is propaganda in this context. Digital restrictions management is harmful to users.

jimktrains2 13y ago

Sure, but is it good news for the users?

maxerickson 13y ago
Yeah, sure. Some sort of somewhat effective anti digital copying mechanism is a great way to enable video rentals on general purpose computers (especially given the pervasive copyright regime of modern video content). There are issues to come when consumers only have access to encumbered media, but at the moment, they pretty clearly benefit from the access.
- smosher 13y ago
  > they pretty clearly benefit from the access Speaking of access, make sure you have the SonyⓇ RootKit™ Updater installed.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  Them: You can watch this (shitty) movie in exchange for your freedom. You: Sure! Me: No way!

maxk42 13y ago

We can and should let them die.

wmf 13y ago

Distributors may not be happy once they discover that Safari supports FairPlay DRM, Chrome supports Widevine DRM, IE supports WMDRM, Samsung phones support SamDRM, HTC phones couldn't afford to license any DRM, etc.

makomk 13y ago
Yeah. Also, there's no requirement for the different DRM schemes to support the same codecs or containers or encryption schemes, so potentially they'll have to re-encode all their content for each scheme. It's actually less standardized than pay TV encryption believe it or not! Edit: The interface between the DRM servers and your backend code isn't standardized either, so content providers still have to do a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific development work. Basically, they standardized just enough to allow sites with DRM to claim they're 100% HTML5, it barely improves interoperability at all.