4 ms·
I don't mean this as a defense of EME, but I think this is more rabble-rousing and fear mongering than anything else. What the EFF and this article are saying i
by mmcclure 13y ago
I don't mean this as a defense of EME, but I think this is more rabble-rousing and fear mongering than anything else. What the EFF and this article are saying is that EME opens the door for this kind of stuff to make its way to the spec. EME on its own does absolutely none of this.
EME is not DRM. It's a standard spec for plugins that provide DRM. Essentially it means that someone like Netflix could still use the HTML5 video element for playback while interacting with a browser plugin just to handle the DRM aspect of things.
- negativity 13y agoFor those who don't know what "EME" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions
- josteink 13y agoIt's DRM legitimised as a concept in a supposedly open standard. it's a slippery slope. with video DRM having a foot inside, who dares to venture a guess at what the next victim will be? DRMed js? DRMed html?
- mmcclure 13y agoI totally understand what you're saying (and agree), my point was that a lot of people posting here seem to think that all of these scary "nexts" are what was approved by the W3C. Yes, it would be a travesty if those things actually happened. Yes, I think DRM is ultimately pointless and silly. Keep in mind, though, that this is just a transition from one method of DRM playback to another, not a leap to DRM for things that didn't previously have it.
- snowwrestler 13y agoHow is the EME slope any more slippy than it is right now with Flash or Silverlight? Both allow sites to serve code in an obscured and non-open way. And yet no one serves a Flash-only or Silverlight-only site.