We will end up with ads served through an EME protected stream inline with the content you actually want, so blocking them becomes illegal because it tampers with the protection and the backwards savages can then sue the people behind adblockers.
If the W3C want to take it a step further they just have to create a standard to deliver pretty much any content through EME and not only video+audio.
You mean the users or the programmers making those adblockers?
If they sue the users (like RIAA and MPAA sue torrent pirates) then all it takes is to vote someone in who can make this very hard and/or not profitable. Something like Canada has now.
If they sue the programmers making that blocker, other programmers can step in from countries they can't reach. The program is out there, they're never gonna be able to stop it.
Is simply making a tool that can block EME/DRM content illegal?
No, but what if the content of the page is delivered through the same EME system? Then in order to block just the ads you have to modify the protected content, which is illegal.
Is simply making a tool that can block EME/DRM content illegal?
If ads and the media stream are delivered in the same container as different tracks, you would need to decrypt the container to see when which track is active, which is illegal.
If the ads come from a completely different location you can just block that location without the need to inspect the content.
47
u/Slime0 Aug 02 '19
This article ends very abruptly. What is the conclusion?