top | item 6564515

Brendan Eich on EME

70 points| paulrouget | 12 years ago |groups.google.com

20 comments

order
[+] chris_wot|12 years ago|reply
Interesting take on things. In particular, this makes my blood run cold:

The playback "device" maker category includes vendors of plugins available cross-browser via NPAPI, of course really just Flash and Silverlight these days. It looks likely to include OS/browser vendors who purvey non-standardized CDMs available under cover of EME only to certain select OS/browser combinations -- possibly only each its own OS and browser!

[+] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
> Also, DRM as proposed via EME is really all about Hollywood movies. It is not about copyrighted materials in general, nor should or can it be (see Hixie's post, or just see the Web).

I propose renaming EME to "the Hollywood API."

[+] acqq|12 years ago|reply
Why does anybody expect that only Hollywood movies would be DRM protected?

Wouldn't DRM be also "about Youtube" and any other web video streaming site (including Facebook?) as soon as it standardized -- practically preventing you to do anything you can do now except watching?

(Now you can actually capture the videos and play them offline).

If you believe DRM wouldn't be used, please present your arguments why it wouldn't.

[+] TazeTSchnitzel|12 years ago|reply
I agree with the post directly after his.

I think, of Flash/Silverlight and EME, the former is the lesser of two evils.

[+] thrillgore|12 years ago|reply
EME is requiring that we close off parts of the HTML5 spec to licensing restrictions to where they won't be subject to public access.

As far as I'm concerned, i'd be more contempt with Flash or Silverlight over not having full access to the HTML5 spec.

[+] dublinben|12 years ago|reply
Isn't that post saying that EME is the lesser of two evils, because moving most of the video playback to the browser (minus only the DRM aspect) is a win?

I'm really struggling to understand how EME could be worse than the current plugin ecosystem in place.