| |||||||||||||
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)Posted Feb 25, 2012 21:42 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148)In reply to: "Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) by slashdot Parent article: "Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica)
You throw around the term "defeated" rather easily. Lossy capture methods lead to degradation of quality. This hardly marks DRM useless, if the goal of a DRM scheme is to protect the content in it's originally delivered form. Lossy capture often also rises above the convenience threshold for most people, making the DRM-protected content better value.
DRM is hardly the all or nothing proposition for implementers that you make it out to be
(Log in to post comments)
"Unethical" HTML video copy protection proposal draws criticism from W3C reps (ars technica) Posted Feb 26, 2012 1:36 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Sure, but there are two problems:
0) SD is good enough for large swaths of the population, depending on usage 1) A DRMed movie need only be cracked once to be playable everhwere in its original quality. Unless playback of *any* medium requires permission of some entity somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||