2 ms·

Thanks for the information. I cede to most of your points, especially on codecs. :) A few more questions: > Which proves it is possible, and could have been do

Thanks for the information. I cede to most of your points, especially on codecs. :) A few more questions: > Which proves it is possible, and could have been done 5 years earlier to kill off Flash. How would HTML5 video, using OS codecs, kill Flash unless it also had DRM support? Flash has had DRM since 2007 (Flash Player 9). > I think Mozilla is responsible for EME being completely accepted. Before announcing EME support, it was still possible to argue that EME was not supported by all browsers, an admittedly small reason for websites to not use EME. Chrome shipped EME in 2013. Safari and IE shipped EME in 2014. EME content was already live and supported by ~60% of browsers when Mozilla began implementing EME in mid-2014. Perhaps Firefox could continue to lean on Flash and Silverlight to play DRM'd video.. until content providers decide they don't want to continue supporting NPAPI for Firefox's small market share. Flash is insecure and Silverlight is on the path to EOL. > The claim was that this was necessary to safe their market share. Well, that didn't work Whether EME has any effect on Firefox market share is yet to be seen. It just went live this week. Chrome or Edge users are unlikely to switch to Firefox because they want DRM video to stop working.

pdkl95 11y ago
This is the problem with letting the opponent pick the battlefield. If you've decided that "playing DRM video" is a necessary feature, you are choosing to perpetually play catch-up. "The only winning move is not to play." The media industries are very used to being the middlemen that dictate how their industry works. As middlemen, they have the power to control both sides (publishers and consumers). As monopolists, they get to abuse the market by tying/bundling the things people want to the things they want to push ("if you want to watch $POPULAR_SHOW, you need to submit to using our DRM"). They also get to play various financial games, though that is less important re: video. These problems are not technical in nature, and cannot be solved by writing software. Chrome and Edge are colluding to require some type of DRM (that they or their friends control)? They should face the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Unfortunately, we have let institutional corruption take over the parts of government that should be enforcing those laws. Choosing freedom instead of submitting to the copyright cartels requires sacrifice. Mozilla could help this with stuff like an educational campaign, but there will always be casualties when fighting entrenched powers. Many people chose convenience instead of investing in their future, so now we are in an uphill battle. It's difficult to convince people that they should choose a healthy browser instead of the copyright cartel's junk-food, and I don't know of any great solutions. What I do know is that giving up the fight and granting those middlemen even more power is only going to make future battles for free software and an open internet even harder. Do you want to tackle is problem now? Or do you want let power accumulate even more and fight a harder problem in the future?

pdkl95 11y ago

This is the problem with letting the opponent pick the battlefield. If you've decided that "playing DRM video" is a necessary feature, you are choosing to perpetually play catch-up. "The only winning move is not to play." The media industries are very used to being the middlemen that dictate how their industry works. As middlemen, they have the power to control both sides (publishers and consumers). As monopolists, they get to abuse the market by tying/bundling the things people want to the things they want to push ("if you want to watch $POPULAR_SHOW, you need to submit to using our DRM"). They also get to play various financial games, though that is less important re: video. These problems are not technical in nature, and cannot be solved by writing software. Chrome and Edge are colluding to require some type of DRM (that they or their friends control)? They should face the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Unfortunately, we have let institutional corruption take over the parts of government that should be enforcing those laws. Choosing freedom instead of submitting to the copyright cartels requires sacrifice. Mozilla could help this with stuff like an educational campaign, but there will always be casualties when fighting entrenched powers. Many people chose convenience instead of investing in their future, so now we are in an uphill battle. It's difficult to convince people that they should choose a healthy browser instead of the copyright cartel's junk-food, and I don't know of any great solutions. What I do know is that giving up the fight and granting those middlemen even more power is only going to make future battles for free software and an open internet even harder. Do you want to tackle is problem now? Or do you want let power accumulate even more and fight a harder problem in the future?