3 ms·

This feels pretty rich coming from the same guy who kowtowed to the copyright industry in order to bring us baked-in DRM on the web. In practice, the singularl

by na85 13y ago

This feels pretty rich coming from the same guy who kowtowed to the copyright industry in order to bring us baked-in DRM on the web. In practice, the singularly boneheaded decision to allow DRM into the official HTML5 spec will have a far greater impact on the average user's web experience than NSA backdoors will.

eridius 13y ago
Go take your misinformed whining somewhere else. HTML5 does not have DRM. It merely standardized an API to allow media content to talk to a content decryption module. But there is no actual DRM in there. You are right, though, that this will have a pretty big impact on the average user's web experience. Namely, it will let them view protected content without requiring proprietary plugins (e.g. Flash, Silverlight, etc). So it's pretty good for the average web user.
- na85 13y ago
  >HTML5 does not have DRM Yet. From the 14 Nov 2013 draft: >This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content. In other words, they're extending HTMLMediaElement to allow Hollywood to put whatever DRM measures in place that they choose. What this WILL NOT do is increase accessibility. Maybe Tim thought it was a good idea, but the old adage is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The copyright industry are not the good guys, and they will find some way, just as they always have, to make the user experience worse in the interests of their bottom line(s). But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you just have more faith in the industry that was shipping malicious rootkits on music CDs than I do.
  - eridius 13y ago
    EME extends HTMLMediaElement to let it talk to Content Decryption Modules, which must be provided elsewhere. This is just a standardized API for being able to handle protected content. I do not understand all the hyperbole surrounding this. You're also a bit off your rocker if you're trying to paint "the copyright industry" as some kind of secretive cabal of people who just want to cram DRM on users' computers. Not to mention the fact that sites that don't use this won't even be affected by it. The vast majority of websites out there won't even care, and the ones that do care already have a solution to deal with protected content today, it's just a crappy solution (e.g. requiring Silverlight). Hell, using EME to handle protected content is a far better experience for the user than requiring the installation of a third-party plugin that can has far more capabilities than just decryption content. So if anything, this actually limits the scope of what protected content playback code can do on users' machines.
    - na85 13y ago
      I never said the copyright cabal was secretive but they absolutely want control over our computers' playback mechanisms. There was a proposal, I think in the HDDVD spec maybe, wherein the dvd drive itself would be remotely disabled and prevented from playing future content based on the sole discretion of some nebulous 3rd party. There's the Sony BMG rootkit thing that Mark Russinovich uncovered. Yes, they absolutely want to cram your computer with DRM and you're a fool for thinking they don't.
      - eridius 13y ago
        They want to control how their content is played back on your computer. That is not the same thing as wanting to arbitrarily stuff arbitrary computers full of arbitrary DRM. Yes, they've gone ridiculously overboard in the past, but DRM is not the goal in and of itself.

by na85 13y ago

eridius 13y ago

Go take your misinformed whining somewhere else. HTML5 does not have DRM. It merely standardized an API to allow media content to talk to a content decryption module. But there is no actual DRM in there. You are right, though, that this will have a pretty big impact on the average user's web experience. Namely, it will let them view protected content without requiring proprietary plugins (e.g. Flash, Silverlight, etc). So it's pretty good for the average web user.

na85 13y ago
>HTML5 does not have DRM Yet. From the 14 Nov 2013 draft: >This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content. In other words, they're extending HTMLMediaElement to allow Hollywood to put whatever DRM measures in place that they choose. What this WILL NOT do is increase accessibility. Maybe Tim thought it was a good idea, but the old adage is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The copyright industry are not the good guys, and they will find some way, just as they always have, to make the user experience worse in the interests of their bottom line(s). But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you just have more faith in the industry that was shipping malicious rootkits on music CDs than I do.
- eridius 13y ago
  EME extends HTMLMediaElement to let it talk to Content Decryption Modules, which must be provided elsewhere. This is just a standardized API for being able to handle protected content. I do not understand all the hyperbole surrounding this. You're also a bit off your rocker if you're trying to paint "the copyright industry" as some kind of secretive cabal of people who just want to cram DRM on users' computers. Not to mention the fact that sites that don't use this won't even be affected by it. The vast majority of websites out there won't even care, and the ones that do care already have a solution to deal with protected content today, it's just a crappy solution (e.g. requiring Silverlight). Hell, using EME to handle protected content is a far better experience for the user than requiring the installation of a third-party plugin that can has far more capabilities than just decryption content. So if anything, this actually limits the scope of what protected content playback code can do on users' machines.
  - na85 13y ago
    I never said the copyright cabal was secretive but they absolutely want control over our computers' playback mechanisms. There was a proposal, I think in the HDDVD spec maybe, wherein the dvd drive itself would be remotely disabled and prevented from playing future content based on the sole discretion of some nebulous 3rd party. There's the Sony BMG rootkit thing that Mark Russinovich uncovered. Yes, they absolutely want to cram your computer with DRM and you're a fool for thinking they don't.
    - eridius 13y ago
      They want to control how their content is played back on your computer. That is not the same thing as wanting to arbitrarily stuff arbitrary computers full of arbitrary DRM. Yes, they've gone ridiculously overboard in the past, but DRM is not the goal in and of itself.