4 ms·
Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with
by Karunamon 11y ago
Let's get something straight here. This EME debacle was never a choice between DRM and no DRM, it was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins.
The browser without EME will be pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access. Users use a browser to access content, not to support philosophical positions on what software should and shouldn't do.
The lesser of two evils was chosen. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality of this situation. It is not realistic to suggest that the largest browser vendors not support user demanded content.
Speaking of philosophical positions, most DRMed content accessed by a user in a browser is going to be of the streaming variety, i.e. something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways.
- jessriedel 11y agoI mostly agree, but isn't it plausible that a centralized standard allows DRM to become more prevalent? Right now lots of copyright-able content is begrudgingly released freely to attract eyeballs, but that could decrease if DRM becomes more seamless.
- Karunamon 11y agoThe DRM makers still have to write, ship, and get people to install the decryption piece - EME just gives it hooks into the browser (and allows said plugin to be appropriately sandboxed, restricted, and treated like the hostile black box piece of crap that it is). So in other words, probably not any more than the current system.
- jessriedel 11y agoGood answer, thank you.
- slrz 11y agoJust that now, the CDM piece ships by default in Chrome, Safari, IE/Edge and is automatically downloaded on demand on Firefox. They're probably fine with ignoring the existence of any other browser. See about:plugins on Chrome to see for yourself.
- MajesticHobo 11y ago> something that DRM isn't preventing you from doing something you're otherwise not supposed to be doing anyways. And what would that be?
- Karunamon 11y agoRecording it. It's a stream, you're paying $company for the rights to access content over the wire. Recording that isn't a right, legal or moral.
- MajesticHobo 11y agoI was under the impression that you are generally allowed to record content for your own personal use, as long as you don't distribute it to others.
- tremon 11y agoSee, and that's the problem with implementations like this. Recording this is perfectly legal in NL.
- serge2k 11y ago> Recording that isn't a right, legal or moral Recording a netflix show so I can watch it later doesn't seem like at all a moral issue, so long as I keep my subscription. Adding DRM also gives them the "You had to break DRM to do this" which is a handy argument to have.
- tracker1 11y agoI have to agree... in the end, if you can't access Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, etc, the majority of people won't use your browser. In order to succeed, imho, you need a great base UI, good support for emerging standards and to support the sites that people use most... Facebook, Google, YouTube and Netflix. At least EME lets all browsers stand a chance of being able to use all the sites they want to use. And as much as I don't like DRM, it's commercially unavoidable, regardless of how weak the implementation is.
- slrz 11y agoI think you misunderstood EME. It doesn't let browsers compete on equal footing. The parts that actually matter for accessing Netflix are deliberately excluded from standardization. So here I have my shiny new browser. I implemented all the relevant standards. Now, how can my users access Netflix? They can't, not unless I can strike a deal with one of the CDM providers, who, incidentally, for the most part are browser vendors themselves, i.e. my competitors.
- drewcrawford 11y agoThe unsupported assertion that a DRM-free universe "is not realistic" is not an argument, even when it is repeated for emphasis in italics. In the music industry, DRM seemed inevitable until one morning Steve Jobs woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Then the whole thing crumbled overnight. iTunes was not "pilloried by its users for not supporting the content they want to access". Users did prefer to buy DRM-free music, bolstering iTunes marketshare in the process. The historical record demonstrates the opposite of your hypothetical. If Chrome or Safari drew a line in the sand and said "No DRM", that would be the end of DRM on the web. It seems they are not willing to do that. But that is a reflection on the lack of leadership at the technology companies, not on the inevitability of DRM.
- Karunamon 11y agoNo it wouldn't have - we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. Furthermore, you imply a level of informal cooperation between the browser vendors that doesn't exist. It turns into a game of prisoners dilemma, where the first person to defect gets to claim a massive feature that none of the others do, and the others are left in worse shape. I'm no fan of DRM, but again, it's the world we live in.
- CaptSpify 11y ago> we'd just continue on the existing path of multiple different plugins with their own incompatibilities and security holes, which is strictly worse for the user. And this is how it should be. I want users to get tired of installing more plugins. I want them to roll their eyes when a site says "you need to do add $x to be able to use this site." We had the same problems with mp3's, and we won out. I see no reason we can't win out with any other media.
- Karunamon 11y agoAnd this is how it should be Only if you ignore: * Users "rolling their eyes" means nothing when they'll gladly click OK to dismiss all the security warnings and installations of n plugins so they can watch Netflix. They'll complain, but the plugin will still be installed at the end of the day. I'd rather that plugin be sandboxed. * That the practical implications of lessened security are more real, hence important than the theoretical concerns by a sandboxed plugin who's entire mission in life is stopping you from recording a fscking video stream. The user you're talking about, the one who signs up for Netflix, gets prompted to download a plugin, shakes their head sadly and cancels their subscription because DRM is evil, doesn't exist outside of FSF patrons.
- tremon 11y agoit was a choice between DRM in a consistent standard vs DRM with a thousand ad-hoc plugins The thousand ad-hoc plugins would have been the better solution. We should be striving to make DRM as expensive for the producer and troublesome for the user as possible.
- throwaway2048 11y agoIt dosent get rid of the "1000s of adhoc plugins" problem whatsoever, CDMs (the thing EME is merely a bridge to) are platform specific, closed source, arbitrary blobs of code that can do anything on the host system, you do not target "EME" as a streaming host you target these CDMs.
- icebraining 11y agoAs I pointed out above, on Firefox they can't "do anything on the host system" as they'll be sandboxed and allowed only the necessary mechanisms to do their job.
- serge2k 11y agoIn practical sense it does because the big content providers are incentivized to work with the common DRM solutions, in order to keep eyes on their product without causing massive headaches for everyone involved. Smaller producers don't have the influence to start putting out custom DRM solutions. You will probably still have the morons who insist they need some special thing, but that's just standard.