From: m...@sap.com (Martin Rex)
DRM system are evil in any way you look at it.
Originally, copyright was a conceived as a temporary (50yrs) monopoly.
The protection period has in recent years been prolonged in many years
to at least 70 years.
[...]
I read an analysis somewhere that
On 26/04/2013, at 9:38 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
Injecting DRM through EME is a disservice to web standardization,
since the latter is supposed to foster the Internet revolution.
What does that *mean*? I'm wary of waving around banners like the
Internet revolution, since
On Fri 26/Apr/2013 21:59:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter wrote:
3. EME should have a very low or zero cost of entry for a content provider.
Quoting from a commenter on The Register:
The DRM mechanism must allow *individuals* (or small groups) a
low-cost low-hassle way to use it. That's because
On 27/04/2013 20:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
A DRM add-on that individuals or small groups use to protect their
stuff seems to be a chimera.
Has anybody tried to design one?
Brian
On Fri 26/Apr/2013 02:53:58 +0200 Mark Nottingham wrote:
Personally, I don't have a firm position on these issues, but I couldn't let
this pass by.
On 25/04/2013, at 7:38 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
DRMs are obviously designed to be non-interoperable, and EME is a
standard
On 26/04/2013 23:38, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Fri 26/Apr/2013 02:53:58 +0200 Mark Nottingham wrote:
Personally, I don't have a firm position on these issues, but I couldn't let
this pass by.
I've thought about this a bit and looked at some on-line discussions.
In as far as this might be
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
1. DRM is a fact of life, and it is therefore better that there should
be a well-formulated standard than a free-for-all. A free-for-all is a
guaranteed route to non-interoperability.
Crack cocaine,
OK, pardon the cheap shot, but I don¹t think SDOs that have some sort of
stewardship relationship to the Internet should ever play any part
whatsoever in the facilitation of DRM.
So it's ok to define protocols that manage access to services (e.g., TLS,
GSS, SASL, etc), but not to the content
On 04/26/2013 10:23 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
OK, pardon the cheap shot, but I don¹t think SDOs that have some sort of
stewardship relationship to the Internet should ever play any part
whatsoever in the facilitation of DRM.
So it's ok to define protocols that manage access to services
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
3. EME should have a very low or zero cost of entry for a content provider.
DRM system are evil in any way you look at it.
Originally, copyright was a conceived as a temporary (50yrs) monopoly.
The protection period has in recent years been prolonged in many years
to
At 02:38 25-04-2013, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME, a.k.a. DRM in HTML5)
specification is not a real DRM itself. It provides for add-on parts
described as Content Decryption Modules that provide DRM functionality
for one or more Key Systems. DRMs are obviously
* Alessandro Vesely wrote:
If you haven't done so already, please sign the FSF petition:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5
The W3C is asking for comments on its Encrypted Media Extensions pro-
posal, including on whether W3C should continue work on the document, to
be sent to the
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME, a.k.a. DRM in HTML5)
specification is not a real DRM itself. It provides for add-on parts
described as Content Decryption Modules that provide DRM functionality
for one or more Key Systems. DRMs are obviously designed to be
non-interoperable, and EME is a
Personally, I don't have a firm position on these issues, but I couldn't let
this pass by.
On 25/04/2013, at 7:38 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME, a.k.a. DRM in HTML5)
specification is not a real DRM itself. It provides for add-on parts
14 matches
Mail list logo
