5 ms·

I don't understand why people think the Web needs Hollywood's video content. Let them build proprietary set top boxes or whatever, who cares if it's not in a br

I don't understand why people think the Web needs Hollywood's video content. Let them build proprietary set top boxes or whatever, who cares if it's not in a browser? It's certainly not important enough to undermine the Web's principles of openness, interoperability, free access to knowledge, etc. As far as I see it, EME would only be a loss for the Web and browser makers like Mozilla; in a similar way to, for example, losing the ability to "view source" would be a loss. I think the real threat is from commercial entities who want EME for entirely separate reasons, i.e. Apple, Microsoft and Google, who also just-so-happen to make browsers. They can embrace/extend/extinguish the Web, by building an encryption standard into their particular browsers which none of the countless others are able to do (Firefox, Konqueror, Dillo, Netsurf, W3M, Lynx, EWW, Elinks, etc.). EME seems like an attempt to preempt such a situation, but I don't see how it can do anything to prevent it. This is a much worse situation than some set-top box scenario, since it will bleed users from all browsers to those few with EME+plugins, and the Web will become yet another Microsoft Office document format.

sievebrain 10y ago
I understand and sympathise with that argument, but View Source is already useless on most large sites due to extensive use of JS rendering and minification. Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. Also: Firefox is quite capable of following Apple, Microsoft and Google. The idea that MozCorp is not a Corp isn't right either. So whilst "the web should not support rights management and voluntarily cede such content to other platforms" is a perfectly reasonable argument, I don't think the sanctity of View Source or Mozilla is a supporting point in favour.
- nanch 10y ago
  Respectfully, all of your points regarding the triviality of view-source here are just wrong. Here's a test for you: go to a page and view-source; what do you see? > View Source is already useless on most large sites No it isn't. Web devs can easily read source on almost all sites all the time. > Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans Yes they are - that why we've got view-source. > and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. That's the point - it's NOT compiled binary. The sanctity of View Source is exactly what's in question here, and I stand in the group that says "no" to closed-source web specifications.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I personally agree that sites with obfuscated JS are hard to read, and are pushing boundaries close to binary. I also think, it's absurd to use that as an argument. Some sites are pushing shitty, hard to read code, sure. But instead of allowing them to continue working against the spirit of the system, we should shame them, and use them as examples of what not to do. If a couple of bad politicians abuse their system, we don't say "fuck it. lets go back to a monarchy"
    - sievebrain 10y ago
      It's not "some" sites, it's nearly all. Heck I picked the front page of BBC News and opened it up. Wall of minified JS. Further down the page we see something that vaguely resembles normal HTML except for stuff like this: <div id=markets_index_promo class="hidden" data-comp-meta="{"id":"markets_index_promo","type":"remote-portlet","handler":"remotePortlet","deviceGroups":null,"opts":{"assetId":"10263779","id":"market_data\/markets_index_promo","loading_strategy":"post_load","position_info":{"instanceNo":1,"positionInRegion":3,"lastInRegion":false,"lastOnPage":false,"column":"secondary_column"}}}">
      - GauntletWizard 10y ago
        It's no longer practical to ship source JS, if it ever was. Filesize limitations and frameworks that require recompilation are a significant chunk of the magic of the modern web.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    "Yes they are - that why we've got view-source." So, uhh, I tried to view-source on a gmail tab. A solid wall of code. There's nothing there meaningful, not like the web pages of 1999 used to be. If you're telling me you can browse the wall of code on a site like gmail.com and learn new tips and tricks from it, well, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
    - alehander42 10y ago
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. Modern web sources are also made by people out for money and/or marketing, who by now even seem to have forgotten about graceful degradation and other things that would slow them down. You don't ask IKEA what the best wood for a solid table is, what means "best" for them has to do with money and the ability to produce in bulk, while a carpenter who worked with all sorts of wood and isn't bothered about those restraints as much will give you a completely different answer. That's kind of how the web became, because IKEA is making more money with selling tables than master carpenters, or even just because they occured later chronologically, because they are "more modern" (which says nothing about quality and only something about time), they are now somehow seen as experts on tables.
- Qwertious 10y ago
  This is because the Web is no longer a document viewer; it's a VM. A true modern "view source" button would just take us to the github page.
  - chriswarbo 10y ago
    Incidentally, most of the pages on my site ( chriswarbo.net ) have a "view source" link which goes to the git source (not on GitHub though, since their service is proprietary) :)
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    Don't forget too that for all the arguments about obfuscated or complex JS today there have been many of the same arguments for as long as server side scripting has been in use, too. The web has long been more than just "simple documents" that are easily View Sourced. That's always been part of the Web's longevity and dominance versus stricter cousins like Gopher. It's interesting that in some ways today's JS heavy client apps are more open than similar server side apps from even just a couple years ago: obfuscated code is still viewable client side and browsers are good at providing deminified views in browser dev tools, and if sourcemaps are left in then you can jump directly to the unobfuscated/deminified sources in browser dev tools. Plus, most communications between chunky JS apps and their servers increasingly use friendly REST protocols, which again is its own sort of win for discoverability and friendliness to an informed user poking around inside of how things work.
imaginenore 10y ago
Because distributing boxes is orders of magnitude more expensive than distributing over the existing infrastructure (the internet).
acdha 10y ago
> I don't understand why people think the Web needs Hollywood's video content. Let them build proprietary set top boxes or whatever, who cares if it's not in a browser? It's certainly not important enough to undermine the Web's principles of openness, interoperability, free access to knowledge, etc. > As far as I see it, EME would only be a loss for the Web and browser makers like Mozilla; in a similar way to, for example, losing the ability to "view source" would be a loss. The flaw in this line of reasoning is talking about it in the past tense and referring to “the Web” as if that's some central authority distinct from the browser manufacturers which can dictate terms. EME has already shipped in Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Edge, Firefox, and Opera. The alternative was something like Apple, Google, and Microsoft hammering out an agreement privately and leaving Mozilla and possibly Opera out in the cold, stuck with either Flash or slowly bleeding users to a browser which offered a better experience. Look at Netflix's support matrix now and notice how many people can now play movies without needing to install anything: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 You're going to have a really hard time convincing most people that this is worse than the previous security, stability, and performance disaster of using NPAPI plugins. The vast majority of users think it's a plus that they can just search, click, and play without having to use a separate device or player application — how are you going to convince them that this should not be allowed? Note also that this does not prevent the use of view source on netflix.com – only access to the decrypted video stream – and should any of the extremely rare browsers which you listed (several of which don't even support images or video of any sort!) decide they too wanted to support it, there's at least a standard process.
- azakai 10y ago
  > Look at Netflix's support matrix Looks terrible, there is no mention of Linux at all.
  - acdha 10y ago
    I get where that's coming from – I've run Linux since the mid-90s, along with other rarely supported systems like BeOS and OS/2 – but … how many people does this actually affect? Linux on the desktop remains a small minority and the percentage of Linux desktop users who are unwilling to use Chrome is even smaller. Again, I don't love DRM but we need a reason for a significant number of people to care. We've had a couple decades for angry nerds ranting on the Internet to show results and it's hard to say that we've done anything. The one area where DRM was rolled back is music and that was a combination of widespread unencumbered CDs and, mostly, Steve Jobs scaring the music labels more than piracy. We need a better approach to avoid repeating that cycle of failure again. Most people think Netflix is good – what's going to make them decide to cancel their subscription?

sievebrain 10y ago

I understand and sympathise with that argument, but View Source is already useless on most large sites due to extensive use of JS rendering and minification. Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. Also: Firefox is quite capable of following Apple, Microsoft and Google. The idea that MozCorp is not a Corp isn't right either. So whilst "the web should not support rights management and voluntarily cede such content to other platforms" is a perfectly reasonable argument, I don't think the sanctity of View Source or Mozilla is a supporting point in favour.

nanch 10y ago
Respectfully, all of your points regarding the triviality of view-source here are just wrong. Here's a test for you: go to a page and view-source; what do you see? > View Source is already useless on most large sites No it isn't. Web devs can easily read source on almost all sites all the time. > Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans Yes they are - that why we've got view-source. > and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. That's the point - it's NOT compiled binary. The sanctity of View Source is exactly what's in question here, and I stand in the group that says "no" to closed-source web specifications.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I personally agree that sites with obfuscated JS are hard to read, and are pushing boundaries close to binary. I also think, it's absurd to use that as an argument. Some sites are pushing shitty, hard to read code, sure. But instead of allowing them to continue working against the spirit of the system, we should shame them, and use them as examples of what not to do. If a couple of bad politicians abuse their system, we don't say "fuck it. lets go back to a monarchy"
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    It's not "some" sites, it's nearly all. Heck I picked the front page of BBC News and opened it up. Wall of minified JS. Further down the page we see something that vaguely resembles normal HTML except for stuff like this: <div id=markets_index_promo class="hidden" data-comp-meta="{"id":"markets_index_promo","type":"remote-portlet","handler":"remotePortlet","deviceGroups":null,"opts":{"assetId":"10263779","id":"market_data\/markets_index_promo","loading_strategy":"post_load","position_info":{"instanceNo":1,"positionInRegion":3,"lastInRegion":false,"lastOnPage":false,"column":"secondary_column"}}}">
    - GauntletWizard 10y ago
      It's no longer practical to ship source JS, if it ever was. Filesize limitations and frameworks that require recompilation are a significant chunk of the magic of the modern web.
- Frondo 10y ago
  "Yes they are - that why we've got view-source." So, uhh, I tried to view-source on a gmail tab. A solid wall of code. There's nothing there meaningful, not like the web pages of 1999 used to be. If you're telling me you can browse the wall of code on a site like gmail.com and learn new tips and tricks from it, well, pull the other one, it's got bells on.
  - alehander42 10y ago
PavlovsCat 10y ago
> Modern web sources aren't meant to be read by humans and it's really only one or two steps above being handed a compiled binary. Modern web sources are also made by people out for money and/or marketing, who by now even seem to have forgotten about graceful degradation and other things that would slow them down. You don't ask IKEA what the best wood for a solid table is, what means "best" for them has to do with money and the ability to produce in bulk, while a carpenter who worked with all sorts of wood and isn't bothered about those restraints as much will give you a completely different answer. That's kind of how the web became, because IKEA is making more money with selling tables than master carpenters, or even just because they occured later chronologically, because they are "more modern" (which says nothing about quality and only something about time), they are now somehow seen as experts on tables.
Qwertious 10y ago
This is because the Web is no longer a document viewer; it's a VM. A true modern "view source" button would just take us to the github page.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  Incidentally, most of the pages on my site ( chriswarbo.net ) have a "view source" link which goes to the git source (not on GitHub though, since their service is proprietary) :)
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  Don't forget too that for all the arguments about obfuscated or complex JS today there have been many of the same arguments for as long as server side scripting has been in use, too. The web has long been more than just "simple documents" that are easily View Sourced. That's always been part of the Web's longevity and dominance versus stricter cousins like Gopher. It's interesting that in some ways today's JS heavy client apps are more open than similar server side apps from even just a couple years ago: obfuscated code is still viewable client side and browsers are good at providing deminified views in browser dev tools, and if sourcemaps are left in then you can jump directly to the unobfuscated/deminified sources in browser dev tools. Plus, most communications between chunky JS apps and their servers increasingly use friendly REST protocols, which again is its own sort of win for discoverability and friendliness to an informed user poking around inside of how things work.

imaginenore 10y ago

Because distributing boxes is orders of magnitude more expensive than distributing over the existing infrastructure (the internet).

acdha 10y ago

> I don't understand why people think the Web needs Hollywood's video content. Let them build proprietary set top boxes or whatever, who cares if it's not in a browser? It's certainly not important enough to undermine the Web's principles of openness, interoperability, free access to knowledge, etc. > As far as I see it, EME would only be a loss for the Web and browser makers like Mozilla; in a similar way to, for example, losing the ability to "view source" would be a loss. The flaw in this line of reasoning is talking about it in the past tense and referring to “the Web” as if that's some central authority distinct from the browser manufacturers which can dictate terms. EME has already shipped in Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Edge, Firefox, and Opera. The alternative was something like Apple, Google, and Microsoft hammering out an agreement privately and leaving Mozilla and possibly Opera out in the cold, stuck with either Flash or slowly bleeding users to a browser which offered a better experience. Look at Netflix's support matrix now and notice how many people can now play movies without needing to install anything: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 You're going to have a really hard time convincing most people that this is worse than the previous security, stability, and performance disaster of using NPAPI plugins. The vast majority of users think it's a plus that they can just search, click, and play without having to use a separate device or player application — how are you going to convince them that this should not be allowed? Note also that this does not prevent the use of view source on netflix.com – only access to the decrypted video stream – and should any of the extremely rare browsers which you listed (several of which don't even support images or video of any sort!) decide they too wanted to support it, there's at least a standard process.

azakai 10y ago
> Look at Netflix's support matrix Looks terrible, there is no mention of Linux at all.
- acdha 10y ago
  I get where that's coming from – I've run Linux since the mid-90s, along with other rarely supported systems like BeOS and OS/2 – but … how many people does this actually affect? Linux on the desktop remains a small minority and the percentage of Linux desktop users who are unwilling to use Chrome is even smaller. Again, I don't love DRM but we need a reason for a significant number of people to care. We've had a couple decades for angry nerds ranting on the Internet to show results and it's hard to say that we've done anything. The one area where DRM was rolled back is music and that was a combination of widespread unencumbered CDs and, mostly, Steve Jobs scaring the music labels more than piracy. We need a better approach to avoid repeating that cycle of failure again. Most people think Netflix is good – what's going to make them decide to cancel their subscription?