4 ms·

HTML+DRM is closer to an open web than a locally installed proprietary application + DRM.

• shmerl 13y ago
  Those who are interested in open Web aren't going to use any DRM, and they could just avoid those external applications. Now they have to worry about disabling EME in the browser, and if that's even possible, since it's a "standard". I clearly see EME to be a setback to the open Web. If content companies aren't interested in open Web, let them stay outside it, until they reconsider.
• pppppowerbook 13y ago
  > HTML+DRM is closer to an open web than a locally installed proprietary application + DRM. HTML+DRM is closer to a fully locked-down proprietary-only DRM -web than a 3rd-party locally installed proprietary application + DRM.
• azakai 13y ago
  > HTML+DRM is closer to an open web than a locally installed proprietary application + DRM. No, HTML+DRM still requires, in addition to the EME API implementation, the actual DRM module. The DRM module will be a locally installed proprietary application - not something standardized, not open, not cross-platform not cross-browser. There are currently 2 such DRM modules, one by Microsoft for IE and one by Google for Chrome. They are proprietary binary blobs, non-standard except for the small external API interface to EME, and are the result of private collaboration with content creation companies.