4 ms·

Though only tangentially related I do wish EME had been properly shot in the head. It's just another Flash that hides behind being "html5" (as if they makes it

by jpgvm 12y ago

Though only tangentially related I do wish EME had been properly shot in the head. It's just another Flash that hides behind being "html5" (as if they makes it all ok). At the end of the day it's proprietary code executing on my machine that I have little or no control over. It's not just a security risk, it's also a stability concern and generally a terrible idea. Copyright enforcement should be left to law, content companies shouldn't be trying their hand at it. Who knows, maybe if their content didn't come wrapped in utter crap people might actually part with money for it.

eeZi 12y ago
At least it's properly sandboxed.
vertex-four 12y ago
> Copyright enforcement should be left to law You would prefer that all copyright violation is a criminal matter rather than a civil one?
- organsnyder 12y ago
  "Law" isn't limited to criminal cases. Nothing in the poster's statement precluded a lawsuit from being an enforcement mechanism.
  - unreal37 12y ago
    But that's the way it currently is. And so little 12-year-old Janie gets a $3,000 "demand to pay" letter for downloading a Britney Spears song with the threat of a lawsuit that will take her family's house away if she refuses. Maybe having a somewhat impartial legal entity in between is more protection for the consumer.
kevincennis 12y ago
I view EME as sort of a necessary evil. There was never any chance that large content companies were going to be okay with serving unencrypted media over HTTP. So the choices were: 1. No major film or television content on the web 2. The survival of Flash/Silverlight 3. EME I'm not crazy about any of those choices, but #3 seems the most reasonable.
- M2Ys4U 12y ago
  4. They should get over it.
- lambda 12y ago
  Between these options, 1 seems the most reasonable to me. I refuse to play along with anyone who thinks that they need to hijack my computer in order to sell me content. They want my money, they can sell me DRM free content.
  - spankalee 12y ago
    Then don't use EME, it's that simple.
- aikah 12y ago
  I believe the W3C is an open standard consortium. What Big Entertainment wants to do is none of its concern.Let them use a plugin,there is already an interface for that. EME isn't different from a plugin, that's what you don't understand.I does less sure,but it still relies on something people will have to install on their computer, or even worse, encryption at the hardware level.

by jpgvm 12y ago

eeZi 12y ago

At least it's properly sandboxed.

vertex-four 12y ago

> Copyright enforcement should be left to law You would prefer that all copyright violation is a criminal matter rather than a civil one?

organsnyder 12y ago
"Law" isn't limited to criminal cases. Nothing in the poster's statement precluded a lawsuit from being an enforcement mechanism.
- unreal37 12y ago
  But that's the way it currently is. And so little 12-year-old Janie gets a $3,000 "demand to pay" letter for downloading a Britney Spears song with the threat of a lawsuit that will take her family's house away if she refuses. Maybe having a somewhat impartial legal entity in between is more protection for the consumer.

kevincennis 12y ago

I view EME as sort of a necessary evil. There was never any chance that large content companies were going to be okay with serving unencrypted media over HTTP. So the choices were: 1. No major film or television content on the web 2. The survival of Flash/Silverlight 3. EME I'm not crazy about any of those choices, but #3 seems the most reasonable.

M2Ys4U 12y ago
4. They should get over it.
lambda 12y ago
Between these options, 1 seems the most reasonable to me. I refuse to play along with anyone who thinks that they need to hijack my computer in order to sell me content. They want my money, they can sell me DRM free content.
- spankalee 12y ago
  Then don't use EME, it's that simple.
aikah 12y ago
I believe the W3C is an open standard consortium. What Big Entertainment wants to do is none of its concern.Let them use a plugin,there is already an interface for that. EME isn't different from a plugin, that's what you don't understand.I does less sure,but it still relies on something people will have to install on their computer, or even worse, encryption at the hardware level.