If you're worried about Net Neutrality, you should be worried about web DRM, too

[redesigned]

@VenTatsu

Really?

Yes!

@VenTatsu

Paragraph 6 directly ties EME to CDM to DRM, no quibbling about other possible uses, CDMs are for DRM

You have to use a CDM for DRM with EME, that is the only place DRM exists in the external third party CDMs as I’ve repeatedly said and contrary to all the articles here.

CDMs don’t have to be DRM and DRM is used in lots of places without CDM. One doesn’t follow the other.

W3C: This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the Clear Key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.

Just because they are intentionally designed to work together doesn’t mean that weren’t designed to also work with non DRM CDMs which of course they were also designed to do. I’ve said this many times above.

Yes EME allows one to interface with CDMs that can decrypt DRM and is specifically designed to accommodate DRM and concerns that anyone implementing DRM would have, so you’ll see that language all over the spec. Pointing out bits that mention DRM like as if that is some sort of proof an, ah ha, see CDMs are designed to work with DRM, is silly. well yes duh. but it is so much more.

I appreciate the effort of finally reading the spec, we should all be as informed as we can about these sorts of things and on guard with our digital rights.

@VenTatsu

Again in paragraph 10 CDMs are about implementing proprietary content protection schemes.[/quote]
AND? it says right there in the the quote you quote also non-proprietary ones.

[quote] W3C: It is worth noting that the proposed (non-proprietary) APIs would work equally well with proprietary CDMs as with non-proprietary content protection schemes that could be implemented in open source software.

What the W3C says is exactly what i said above.

@VenTatsu

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.

Thank you for clarifying, i was unclear what you meant. I read it very differently. The blog post basically says some companies consider content protection necessary for making money and they want to make sure that content remains accessible from the open web in a standard way. They aren’t even weighing in on the argument, let alone creating a logical fallacy. That is my read anyway…

@VenTatsu

I linked to which browsers implemented NPAPI, and I said it was a bad API

When i read your words above, it seems like you said BOTH we should go back to it, and you’d have no problem with EME if it was a NPAPI plugin discover system.

@VenTatsu

Chrome hasn’t started to auto run third party plugins.

Are you talking about plugins or CDMs? When people refer to automatic versus having to install, they typically mean if you have to download and install something or if it is done automatically. The click to activate, message is a security block on automatically downloaded content, asking your permission to run. It is another thing altogether.

@VenTatsu

But this thread is closing soon, and while in some ways I fell better about EME, in other I feel much worse.

Yeah, the thread is closing soon. I appreciate the conversation. It is good to be on guard about new tech, especially anything DRM related. I think the more clarity we have the better we can all weight the implications and impacts of new tech, which is why we need honest frank discussions. That is why misinformation, like those found in the articles with the weird lock image here on boingboing, is so harmful to everyone.

have a nice week. cheers.