zlacker

> The web was more open when to play those videos you had to use a proprietary Flash or Silverlight plugin?

That's what you are claiming with your sarcasm hidden behind a rhetorical question, I've never said anything about Flash or Silverlight in the comment you've answered to.

There is absolutely no difference from a conceptual perspective between EME implementation and proprietary plugins, EME is necessarily based on a proprietary spyware, but you can't fathom that fact apparently.

>>throw_+(OP)
Flash wasn't just DRM though. Incorporating video and animations into the web proper through browser was a win for the web despite the bitter pill of not ridding ourselves of DRM.

>>throw_+(OP)
You said the web stopped be open when EME was accepted.

But as you just noted there is no conceptual difference between EME and the proprietary plugins that it replaced (Flash based and Silverlight based video players).

So how does replacing something with something else that is conceptually not different change that status of the web from open to not open?

>>tzs+7e
> You said the web stopped be open when EME was accepted.

Neither Flash or Silverlight were ever web standards. Flash was never accepted as a web standard. EME is a web standard.

EME is as bad as Flash or Silverlight from a conceptual perspective. EME has no place in web standards, no more than flash.

Again, it's you who brought up Flash and Co, I never brought it up.

>>asadot+d4
> Flash wasn't just DRM though. Incorporating video and animations into the web proper through browser was a win for the web despite the bitter pill of not ridding ourselves of DRM.

DRM as implemented by EME is necessarily a closed source, proprietary plugin just like Flash, I never said that Flash was just a DRM. Flash could be used as DRM system, in fact its video format FLV supported DRM.