Hello,
This stopped my letter writing for today: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process." http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders.ars
Several key actors seem to be against it, but I think that the FSFE should also issue a clear statement against this.
Regards,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:04:56PM +0000, Heiki Repentinus Ojasild wrote:
Hello,
This stopped my letter writing for today: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process." http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders.ars
Several key actors seem to be against it, but I think that the FSFE should also issue a clear statement against this.
yes, I think so.
Can anyone here start work on an assessment? Martin, could you create a public Etherpad on etherpad.fsfe.org for work on this, and post the link here?
Thanks!
Best regards, Karsten
Hi All,
This stopped my letter writing for today: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process." http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders.ars
Several key actors seem to be against it, but I think that the FSFE should also issue a clear statement against this.
yes, I think so.
Can anyone here start work on an assessment? Martin, could you create a public Etherpad on etherpad.fsfe.org for work on this, and post the link here?
EtherPad opened here: http://etherpad.fsfe.org/hzacDY4ImV
Martin
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 à 15:06 +0100, Karsten Gerloff a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:04:56PM +0000, Heiki Repentinus Ojasild wrote:
Hello,
This stopped my letter writing for today: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process." http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/unethical-html-video-copy-protection-proposal-criticized-by-standards-stakeholders.ars
Several key actors seem to be against it, but I think that the FSFE should also issue a clear statement against this.
yes, I think so.
Can anyone here start work on an assessment? Martin, could you create a public Etherpad on etherpad.fsfe.org for work on this, and post the link here?
Hi,
So if I get this right technically what they propose is: to have javascript handles key etc to allow the user to decrypt content.
But they say in the spec: "Support simple decryption without the need for DRM servers, etc." So that's totally handled on the client side. That's definitely asking to put proprietary software on the client, which is unacceptable.
The technical burden of maintaining stupid copyright and geolocalized controls should be on the shoulders of proprietary content providers, certainly not on the users' right to control their computer.
(that means: I understand some people don't want do distribute "© all rights reserved" content on the Web. That's their choice, but I see no reason why the Web should make life easier for them)