None of the things mentioned in the article actually apply to EME, that is a fact.
I agree there are issues with DRM and am all for fair use, ownership rights, and the lot, I regularly speak out against DRM, but what I don’t do is spread misinformation, and i feel that doing so weakens any legitimate argument in the space, so i feel compelled to speak out when anyone is misrepresenting the facts for an agenda, on either side.
I do agree with your points about digital goods, and how we as a society need to rethink things. I’ve even given a talk against the dangers of the idea of IP as a whole, its history, and the struggles we face in the modern world finding a balance that meets all needs. I think the copyright system is broken etc.
That is a misunderstanding, the point is not if you as the user could write a CDM, or which CDM is used to distribute the content. Using your own CDM to distribute another persons content means you’d have to have a DRM free copy to start with AND distribution rights, it just doesn’t make sense for an individual, but iTunes video and Netflix video already does this exact thing, because they can afford distribution licenses and agreements to get access to the sources.
The real point is if small new startups can or cannot create their own CDMs for their own content (they can contrary to cory’s claims) or if small new startups can access other people’s CDMs to interact with other people’s content (again they can contrary to corys claims) so rather then further limiting the ability of small players and new players it dramatically opens up and levels the playing field (again this is directly contrary to cory’s claims) and greatly improves the landscape for new and smaller players. EME is a huge win for them and for the consumers.
That blog post is the official w3C statement on the issue, and is very accurate. I work in this field directly and none of the companies involved are pushing out misinformation through the w3C, that is crazy. many of the best minds on the internet are involved in and have weighed in on this subject and what they are saying is accurate, but if you don’t believe me read the ACTUAL SPEC which i also linked to and determine for yourself. I have.
It is crazy to think that the group that standardized the open internet is lying about one of its specs that they openly publish for anyone to look at. Look at its members. Yeah. You’d have to go full tinfoil and not be able to understand the spec and its impact for yourself by looking at it to mistakenly think they are in any way misrepresenting things. Their statements are accurate and address all the mentioned concerns. Why do you think the EFF didn’t try and amend any specific flaw in the proposal instead of just block it? The answer is obvious really, they have not been working with the W3C on making sure the spec is good, they been obstructionists with the single goal of blocking it facts be dammed, full stop.
Are you kidding me? Standards, specifically the w3c standards are the foundation for the open web, the web as you know it could not exist without them. it levels the playing field so that anyone can implement or interact with the standard in a know expected way. we could not have the internet without standards. what does standardizing the EME do? it allows future browser makers to connect to or use any CDM, before all plugins were proprietary and interacted with the browser in a proprietary way, a chrome plugin cannot run in safari, opera, firefox, etc. it allows small players to create CDMs that work automatically without depending on a big players proprietary plugin being installed. EME increase interoperability, it increases system security, it increases user privacy, it runs in a sandbox and can’t be used to exploit your system unlike plugins like flash.
The alternative to having it be an open standard is having it be a close proprietary thing which is no good for anyone. Most new technology from canvas, to 3d, start off as proprietary browser experiments then then get pushed towards a unified implementation then an official standard. it is how all these web technologies work, and for very good reason.
Nope. If you know the history of the open web the open web has always allowed for and accommodated both open and closed content, since the very beginning. Thinking it hasn’t is complete misunderstanding of what the open web is.
There are several.
no i doubt very much that an individual could obtain or afford such a thing, netflix barely can.
but again that is a misunderstanding of how this is all supposed to work. anyone could write software that interacts with other people’s CDMs to consume their content, or create their own CDMs for their own content. No one anywhere is suggesting that anyone should be able to DRM other peoples content unless they have distribution rights to do so, in which case they could.
But it does when you understand it. Both for consuming third party CDMs and for creating alternate CDMs.
