Really? Paragraph 2
By the second paragraph that post really really strongly implies that this is about content protection AKA DRM.
Paragraph 3 proceeds to conflate usage based restrictions (content protection, copy protection, DRM, or what ever you prefer to call it) with access based restrictions.
Paragraph 4 again defines EME as a “content-protection” standard.
Paragraph 6 directly ties EME to CDM to DRM, no quibbling about other possible uses, CDMs are for DRM:
A strait up bold faced statement that CDMs are intended to be a part of DRM systems.
Again Paragraph 8 discusses how we must allow DRM into Open Web, not a direct tie between EME and DRM, but taken with the rest it’s part of a theme.
Paragraph 9 again discusses interfacing with CDMs in the context of “protected content” no alternate uses described.
Again in paragraph 10 CDMs are about implementing proprietary content protection schemes.
In an 11 paragraph post 6 of those paragraphs could by reasonable interpretation tie EME directly to DRM if we decide that the phrase “content protection” means DRM, or other usage based restrictions. Even if you reject that connection paragraph 6 make a no wiggle room direct connection between EME and DRM.
Your right that EME could be used for non DRM uses, but there is a wide gulf between what a system was intended to do and what it can be made to do.
I have already said it twice, I quoted the text I fell is logically not sound from the blog post.
One last time, the post repeatedly conflates content protection and monetary remuneration. It is possible for a service to require payment for content without EME. EME does nothing to enable payment for content. You can base an argument on saying content creator need to be paid, then introduce a ‘solution’ that doesn’t in fact help any one get paid, and remain logically sound. Hollywood may have a fetish for DRM and other anti-consumer content restriction systems, but that doesn’t mean that they are correct.
I linked to which browsers implemented NPAPI, and I said it was a bad API, you seem to be ignoring what I actually said and instead imagining what I said to fit your internal narrative about people that disagree with you.
My argument was not that it was a shining bastion of wonder, just that you can’t say that no API has ever existed that allowed cross browser media format decoders (including DRM) when we can in fact point to one that DID EXIST!
NO, My point was that EME is just lipstick on a pig. It might be a more secure and technically better solution, but it is still just a way to build browser plugins, only this time it was designed with a very limited intent instead of being a general use system.
No, you quoted a rhetorical question out of context and then proceed to interpret that quote to be the thesis of my argument instead of a minor component of the argument. If that was all you had done I would have just complained about you misinterpreting me, but you said “He was saying that…”. You directly indicated that I had made and argument that I had not made. You took my rhetorical question, inserted words to change its meaning, and then portrayed it as my intent. That is “putting words in my mouth”.
On the other hand if you had said “I think he was saying that…” I would have no objection, you would clearly be making a statement of opinion about my prior statements. I could say you had misunderstood me, but I could not claim you misrepresented me.
No, I have been told I don’t have a the required components to decode a protected video, or something to that effect.
Yes, but Chrome asks me if I want to download a plugin that a site has requested, or I have to explicitly seek it out. Please tell me Chrome hasn’t started to auto run third party plugins.
Ah yes, sandboxed, the snake oil of the computer security world. I’ve never heard of almost every single sandbox technology failing in the face of a determined attacker.
The Java sandbox ensured Applets would never be used to exploit end users.
The same could be said for ActiveX, and even Flash it self. All technologies that claimed to be sandboxed.
The idea that my browser is grabbing binary code without any user interaction and executing it is not confidence boosting. Maybe CDMs will have a better sandbox and the prior attempts, but hackers are also getting better. This is not an arms race I want to be in.
I’m sure we could go on like this, and I have learned some useful things about the EME standard from you. But this thread is closing soon, and while in some ways I fell better about EME, in other I feel much worse.
