Dumb argument. With SSL the bank has control of its own key, and can keep it secret or publish it, and you have control of your own key. You both conform to the open SSL standard, you both control your own software, and you can both fix bugs in the software you use. (No, you can't fix bugs in the bank's software, and they can't fix bugs in your software. That's perfectly sensible).
With DRM someone is keeping your video and worse, the code running on your computer, secret from you. If it has bugs, you can't fix them. So no, I'm afraid all DRM really is bad.
Content producers will have to continue to rely on expensive, private video technology/DRM stacks such as Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Media Server.
Whereas with EME you'll have to license PlayReady and Widevine and maybe FairPlay.
DRM is evil. DRM is not made for the user but for companies that tries to protect an outdated business model. DRM is certainly a technology that should never make it to the HTML5 standard.
You write that not all DRM is bad. Can you come up with an example where DRM is "not bad"? I can come up with plenty of bad examples that hurts legit users more than the users that finds their way around the DRM.
4 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 23.3 ms ] threadWith DRM someone is keeping your video and worse, the code running on your computer, secret from you. If it has bugs, you can't fix them. So no, I'm afraid all DRM really is bad.
Yet, Netflix open sources the code[1].
[1]http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/07/nfwebcrypto-web-cryptogr...
Whereas with EME you'll have to license PlayReady and Widevine and maybe FairPlay.
DRM is evil. DRM is not made for the user but for companies that tries to protect an outdated business model. DRM is certainly a technology that should never make it to the HTML5 standard.
You write that not all DRM is bad. Can you come up with an example where DRM is "not bad"? I can come up with plenty of bad examples that hurts legit users more than the users that finds their way around the DRM.