Re:DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C
by the_ancient on Thursday March 17, 2016 @06:42AM
(#11303575)
I have never really understood why people continue to instist that EME is not filled with "black box plugins"
EME is enabling black box plugins, simply calling them "extensions" does not magically make them something other than a Black Box binary blobs loaded by the browser.
Functionally they are really no different than the Flash or Silverlight plugin, they simply contain less stuff and are more specialized
W3C is suppose to be promoting the Open Web, that means open regardless of Operating System, Browser Choice, or Nation
EME violates all 3 of those by locking you down to only commercial, or commercially supported browsers (no open source EME, even Mozilla had to pay Adobe to create them a Commercial non-free plugin for FF)
Free/Libre Operating Systems are Excluded from the new w3c vision of the web
EME/DRM enables Geo-fencing of content
In short the EME is a complete bastardization of the w3c mission
EME is enabling black box plugins, simply calling them "extensions" does not magically make them something other than a Black Box binary blobs loaded by the browser.
Functionally they are really no different than the Flash or Silverlight plugin, they simply contain less stuff and are more specialized
W3C is suppose to be promoting the Open Web, that means open regardless of Operating System, Browser Choice, or Nation
EME violates all 3 of those by locking you down to only commercial, or commercially supported browsers (no open source EME, even Mozilla had to pay Adobe to create them a Commercial non-free plugin for FF)
Free/Libre Operating Systems are Excluded from the new w3c vision of the web
EME/DRM enables Geo-fencing of content
In short the EME is a complete bastardization of the w3c mission