[ARothfusz]

I wonder if, while they're adding encryption, they could also add user-controllable DRM. That way when you post a photo or video, you can specify the rights of (and prices for) those who download it. One of the things that's always felt evil about DRM to me is that it currently only protects the big guys. What if DRM could protect (and pay) everyone who creates content? So we have no more of this: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-p...

[sowbug]

That's not really DRM. At best it's DRE (digital rights expression, a term I just made up). DRM controls the computer showing the content.

The problem with the idea is that it works only if every single photo/video player in the world agrees to respect the metadata in the file, _in spite of the wishes of the owner of the computer running the player_. Be careful what you ask for.

In theory, adding a copyright notice to EXIF is just as effective -- though everything is already legally copyrighted the moment it's fixed in a medium, regardless of notice. So you already have what you're asking for, and you can see how well it's working.

See also RFC 3514.

[tormeh]

That's a strawman. The classic DRM solution is to create a new format with some secret knowledge required to play it. Only players that respect the metadata are given the secret required to support the codec.