5 ms·
> At worst there'll be no standard, at best there'll be a standard not under W3C control Wrong way around. From the anti-DRM POV, the best case is no standard,
by AimHere 10y ago
> At worst there'll be no standard, at best there'll be a standard not under W3C control
Wrong way around. From the anti-DRM POV, the best case is no standard, since that likely turns DRM web content platforms into an ugly battleground where multiple competing proprietary companies use horrendous tactics to fight over user share and platform dominance. All sorts of third party browser plugins will be needed, with the resulting mess of upgrades and incompatibilities and platform dependencies, and the whole world just ends up hating the whole mess and goes back to the free internet. Think in terms of Flash vs Silverlight vs Java applets all being superceded by the considerably less awful HTML5.
The point is to make DRM-afflicted content into as bad a product as possible. Having a standard for DRM is only a good thing if those against it have already admitted defeat.
The worry is if the content providers get together and make a standard outside of the W3C, and DRM content becomes a usable product without any consortium input.
- gcp 10y agoThis is an interesting POV, which I hadn't considered. There are more outcomes possible than the one you suggested though. It's possible for one DRM standard to win out over the others, thereby entrenching one single proprietary, closed, intrusive and potentially patented solution into something that just has to be supported. 15 years ago we called this Flash. We've still not gotten entirely rid of it. Maybe it's prudent to avoid a repetition of that situation.
- izacus 10y agoBut we can't avoid this situation if we sanction an easy way to use a close-source, proprietary, intrusive and patented solution in form of EME.
- gcp 10y agoEME is neither of those things, and makes it easier for multiple CDM (which is that) to exist, which at least means there's competition.
- izacus 10y agoI'm sorry? EME binary blobs aren't any of those things? I'm afraid that's not correct.
- gcp 10y agoYou should read up an understand the difference between EME and CDMs. You are confusing them. I can't blame you, because the EFF/FSF are often conflating the two. EME specifies a protocol to establish communication between a webpage and a DRM module. The DRM module is called the CDM (content decryption module). EME is what the W3C was standardizing, and can be implemented in open source. The CDM is not standardized and is a binary, closed source blob.
- catdog 10y agoIn the end that doesn't really matter as the result stays the same. Sure you can openly implement EME but not the CDM, but without the CDM EME is pointless.
- richardwhiuk 10y agoIf W3C doesn't make progress in the way that the browser makers want, they'll just go around them. This isn't a possibility - it's happened before with WHATWG. The W3C exists to serve the browser and content makers who want this.
- gsnedders 10y agoAnd the W3C is ultimately beholden to its membership, and in a number of countries (including some the W3C operates in!) the difference between an industrial consortium and a cartel is the former allows anyone willing to abide by the consortium's process and pay its membership fees and the latter does not.
- acdha 10y agoThat's the part I think a lot of people forget: Apple, Google, and Microsoft are also DRM vendors. There is no nefarious third party needed to put DRM into most of the browsers people use, and Mozilla doesn't have anywhere enough market-share to do more than slow that.
- ubersoldat2k7 10y agoThis is what will happen and Firefox can kiss its ass goodbye when it comes to, at least, playing video. Not sure about Chrome, but Safari and Edge can easily ship with EME and CENC support. Giving this possibility to open source browsers is a sensible thing to do. Because DRM, at least for video streaming won't go away.