Re: Video copy protection

I don't think this is necessary.  Content providers have been using
simple hacks like transparent div overlays to deter users from
grabbing content from their sites for years.  YouTube does this for
its HTML5 videos, for instance.  That should serve as clear a signal
as anything that the content isn't meant to be downloaded.  Moreover,
it's reasonably likely that at least one browser won't honor an
explicit attribute, in which case no one will use it anyway, defeating
the point.

ping="" might be a useful comparison.  It's only marginally better
than the well-established hacky workarounds that we all know about, so
authors aren't interested unless support is absolutely ubiquitous.  As
a result, it looks like it's not getting off the ground (although I
haven't paid much attention to it and might be mistaken).

>From the other direction, consider autocomplete="false" for an example
of a feature that can be described as anti-user, but where the
author-side use-case is so compelling that browsers all (AFAIK)
implement it and make it hard for the user to opt out.

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> However, this might need some legal analysis with regard to the USA's DMCA
> and possibly other laws ... in case such an attribute would be deemed to
> constitute an "effective technological protection measure" and then any UA
> not honouring the request could be legally liable.

I think we, as implementers/authors/etc., should try to focus on
technical merit without bringing up legal issues that none of us is
qualified to properly evaluate.  I believe all the major HTML
implementers employ lawyers who could be consulted prior to shipping
the feature, just as they're consulted for other features of uncertain
legal standing (e.g., Theora support), and I don't see much use in our
prejudging the question.

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:07:27 UTC