@®om: tu as raison, Tim Berners-Lee dit: «Encrypted video» dans son titre, ce qui peut prêter à confusion avec SSH par ex. , puis plus avant dans son article, il parle de «protection».

Ma question est:
Je n'ai pas de plugin Flash (par choix), je ne peux donc pas regarder directement une vidéo en Flash dans Firefox.

On supprime Flash et on met des EME: est-ce que je me trompe en disant que ces sortes de DRM peuvent tout simplement m'empêcher de voir du contenu? ou seulement de le télécharger?

J'aime bien aussi ce que Mhyst écrit en commentaire de la déclaration de Tim Berners-Lee:
An open standard cannot guaranty Compliance and Robustness in any way. Since that is required for content owners, they’re doing just a half open standard making part of the standard secret (the CDM). Given that, I think it doesn’t matter if “we” do it at the W3C or not. I also think that allowing this to exist under the W3C name is going to be a stain in the future. So it’s better for the W3C to keep aside of this or any kind of content protection which isn’t completely Open.

What I just said it’s a truth by itself. Now I’ll give you my own opinion:

Content owners don’t just want to protect their content but also to control the user in the process. That’s spyware and can have serious vulnerabilities. Users can’t be abused forever. Please care for all the people who is innocent and ignorant about this and stop them as soon as possible.

Et Robert Ellis:
(…)
If you’re truly thinking about the users first, then you must consider that the user owns his computer. He decides how it is to be used and has full control over it. Putting encrypted media into HTML is endorsing a system whereby the control over the computer is taken away from the user and put into someone else’s hands.