Camera DRM would exclude existing/foreign/hacked cameras
[QUOTE=dee.;347804]Yes, until they require every HD-capable video camera to have an RFID chip, identifying it to the computer, thus alerting the OS that the screen may be being recorded... well, not likely to happen, but it wouldn't be the most grandiose scheme hollywood has come up with...
Countermeansures would include using cameras that exist today, removing the RFID chip, removing the receiver's antenna, buying export/foreign models on Ebay, etc. Lots of people would refuse to buy any camera set to, say, read a special pattern in DRM content and not record it, or warn computers of its presence. Hackers would write new camera firmware to counter this, the whole DRM/trusted OS arms race would be repeated. Meanwhile the entire camera industry would fear consumer rejection and would fight tooth and nail. For the most part, efforts to DRM one device against another have been defeated this way, going all the way back to VCR's and the famous Betamax case.
Originally Posted by dee.
Well, that probably depends on the browser, and how securely they implement the EME protocol. Of course it'd be preferable that browsers didn't implement it at all. But this is a bit worse than Sony's copy protection - at least with Sony's DRM, you could bypass the DRM, or if you listened to the CD in a CD player, it didn't matter anyway - but with EME, if you don't allow the service to load questionable binary blobs on your machine, you can't view the content, at all (unless of course you just torrent it). That means that in order to view to content (legally) you'll have to trust some arbitrary code to be executed on your computer, and with all the NSA stuff and data mining, the incentive for them to install some type of spyware or to just snoop around your hard drive is massive.
Under this circumstance people might decide they don't want that content at all -or don't want it UNLESS it is pirated. When the RIAA lawsuits began, tens of millions of people (myself included) responded with anger by refusing to buy any more prerecorded CD's. Losses from the de facto boycott exceeded losses from "piracy" and the lawsuits were abandoned. Some say no defendant ever paid a penny of those file sharing judgements. I literally do not have a single "legal" proprietary media file in my entire file system and I intend to keep it that way!
As for data mining, I certainly won't allow any browser that is compatable with that kind of extension on any of my machines with encrypted hard drives. Much of that and I may have to split machines that access any network from machines that carry raw video clips, with publication-ready files travelling by flash drive to the networked machine. I have to assume the NSA will be able to bypass browsers asking for permission, so that means I have to remove that kind of support entirely or blacklist updating to any browser that contains such support.
Last edited by Luke; 07-31-2013 at 10:11 PM.