Linked by Beta on Sat 8th Jun 2013 20:06 UTC
Internet & Networking "Bruce Lawson started a very interesting discussion about the Encrypted Media Extensions to HTML a few months ago, with learned and interesting commentary from John Foliot and others. After devoting some thought to this, I believe that the amount of argument around this subject is at least partially caused by its separation of the web from the spirit of the web."
Permalink for comment 564326
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It was needed.
by ssokolow on Mon 10th Jun 2013 21:30 UTC in reply to "It was needed."
Member since:

It was either we have DRM option in HTML video or we had flash vs h264 forever.

There have been concessions made for this sort of thing before it was called the object tag and was for 3rd party plugins.

You have every right not to use it and not to pay for it, like before.

Fundamentalism is bad for everyone and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let people have a specification that is open (which is in the spirit of the web) and they are free to implement it ... and their potential customers are free to decide if they wish to use it.

I don't see how this is a bad thing?

True, I suppose. It's mainly a "devil you know" situation.

With Flash, we already know how to make sure a new browser implements NPAPI well enough to get the plugin working. We understand the implications of Adobe's approach to sandboxing untrusted code. We trust Adobe to not risk the PR nightmare of trying anything funny like the Sony Rootkit fiasco.

Given the current climate regarding DRM and Secure Boot and all the other nonsense, we have neither of those guarantees with whatever replaces it. It could wind up being the new ActiveX.

Reply Parent Score: 3