9 ms·

This is all true, but what has it got to do with the W3C approving the standard or not? The content publishers and the browser makers are severely intermingled

• eveningcoffee 10y ago
  We don't even need to pretend Firefox has any relevance And this is a collective fault of many ignorant persons also in this forum who more than often have suggest people to use Chrome. I think that Chrome has gained much support thanks to the wide spread ignorance about the implications.
  • gcp 10y ago
    I wouldn't say those people were "ignorant". Things like YouTube, Google Docs, most Google properties work better in Chrome. This isn't always intentional, even. Google can control both ends of the pipe, which means whenever they make big changes Chrome users will have a better experience. They pushed ahead there with MSE, codec support (VP9), SPDY, HTTP/2, etc and other browsers had to catch up. If other browsers were ahead in some areas, it didn't matter, because the content side didn't support it. Sites are designed and optimized in Chrome first and foremost, so Chrome never risks looking slow. Similar things apply to Safari on iOS, or Edge on Windows. The problem in my mind is that by having the same parties sit on both ends of this story, it's inevitable the middle man (that could be a leverage against DRM) gets pushed out. It's very, very hard to explain to the majority of users that they have to accept short term pain to avoid an outcome that is much worse for them. Ask any politician. But we don't even need to kill the web to get there (pushing out any middlemen). We have native apps! Nobody is complaining their Android or iOS phone has DRM, do they?
    • lucb1e 10y ago
      > Things like [Google] YouTube, Google Docs, most Google [projects] work better in Chrome. I wonder why that is. > This isn't always intentional, even. I don't think everyone at Google is evil. There are many passionate engineers and hackers like you and me. However, if a Youtube developer has an issue with something running extraordinarily slowly, it's a much shorter call to the Chrome department than it would be to Apple's Safari or Mozilla's Firefox. So while developers might not be actively hindering other browsers, they are developing for Chrome. That it technically works on other browsers is a requirement but optimizing for the competition's browsers is not something I imagine management allocates hours for. The end result is that they are hindering competition in the browser market, and quite a few people saw that coming. Still, even more people (vastly more people) either did not care or know and recommended Chrome anyway. > Nobody is complaining their Android or iOS phone has DRM, do they? My Android phone does not have DRM beyond what it in the SIM and I am complaining about people whose phones do. Many friends and peers share my view on this, so it's at least not "nobody".
      • gcp 10y ago
        My Android phone does not have DRM beyond what it in the SIM https://developer.android.com/reference/android/drm/package-summary.html https://developer.android.com/reference/android/drm/package-... "Added in API level 11". Maybe you have a custom build with this ripped out, but then we're stretching by calling it "Android".
        • lucb1e 10y ago
          I suppose you might be right. I actually realized after posting that there is probably something somewhere in my phone that still contains some kind of DRM. Assuming this is still in Cyanogenmod, you're probably right. Then again, I'm not sure I have any apps that use this.
      • deepwave 10y ago
        I use Firefox over any other browser precisely because I can "hack" it. I've changed so much under about:config that I have to document it for the next install. Firefox allows so many useful hacks that are truly in favor of the user. Chrome not so much. I don't use anything other than macOS or *nix, so I cannot speak to IE or other platforms.
  • kolinko 10y ago
    Being aware of being in a prisoner dilemma doesn't change the optimal strategy.
    • forgottenpass 10y ago
      No, but if you have principles it might change the strategy chosen.
    • macawfish 10y ago
      Is this classical or quantum prisoner's dilemma? Which variation? Because the knowledge of the prisoner is deeply intertwined with the optimal strategy in quantum prisoner's dilemmas. And quantum prisoner's dilemmas have at times been shown to more accurately match human behavior than classical ones.
  • joesmo 10y ago
    Or it could be that FF is perceptibly slower and currently has very weak dev tools. I personally use Chromium, which IMO, is the best of both worlds and actually, the only one of the three browsers that doesn't have EME (so you could argue it's better than FF in this regard). You also get a clear picture of the sites that stream with DRM (looking at you Vimeo).
    • gcp 10y ago
      I don't think the person you're arguing with is even necessarily denying this. He is pointing out that the trade-off of using the "perceptibly" faster browser has very bad long term consequences.
• phicoh 10y ago
  Given that there is no sensible way to implement DRM in open source, the W3C should not approve the standard. Or the other way around, W3C should only approve feature complete standards that can be implemented using open source. You cannot have an open web if an essential part is governed by binary blobs. Nothing is lost if W3C does not approve an interface to secret technology.
  • gcp 10y ago
    EME can be implemented in open source (there's an implementation in Chromium and another one in Firefox). The problem is the CDM, which the W3C isn't standardizing.
    • JoshTriplett 10y ago
      Which means you can't actually ship any useful implementation, since it won't have a backend to talk to. And an Open Source implementation would inherently be non-functional.
      • gcp 10y ago
        You can implement EME in open source (the part that W3C standardized), and then throw a closed source CDM module on top of it. You don't even have to provide the CDM, third parties can provide multiple ones. This is in fact how it works in Firefox. There's no part of Firefox that is closed source, including EME support or even the CDM sandbox. The CDM is loaded at runtime from an external server. Focusing on the W3C and/or it's relation with open source is completely and utterly missing the point, but it's explained enough throughout this thread that I see no point in repeating it once again here.
        • JoshTriplett 10y ago
          > You can implement EME in open source (the part that W3C standardized), and then throw a closed source CDM module on top of it. Which means the whole thing doesn't work in a fully Open Source browser. EME is non-functional without a proprietary CDM. It's like standardizing the <object> or <applet> tags: yes, they're a standard, but they're a standard way to talk to completely non-standard bits. But worse, because you could use <object> or <applet> to talk to an Open Source plugin, but a CDM completely loses what little function it has if open. (That includes hardware-backed CDMs, since signed software you can't replace isn't Open Source either.)
• JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > DRM will be there anyway. Be it Flash, be it something else. Then let it be Flash, so it can die with Flash. Let's not perpetuate it, or make it any easier. Let a hundred competing "standards" bloom so media companies have more work to do, and might decide that DRM seems like too much trouble and decreases their target audience. Let browsers prune away support for DRM with their outdated plugin interfaces. Don't give any one "standard" the blessing of any standards organization. And don't accept something inherently non-standard as a standard. Don't accept as a standard something completely unimplementable in a fully Open Source browser. Don't accept a standard interface to custom binary DRM implementations.
  • derefr 10y ago
    There aren't going to be a hundred competing standards, because the production tool ecosystem has its own working groups who will settle on a small set of standards, with or without the input of the browser vendors. The browser vendors only have a say in DRM formats insofar as providing universal support for a format entices the production-tool ecosystem to provide export-compatibility for it. If the browser-vendors refuse to provide such a standard, they're really just refusing to sit at the table where the standard is decided. In the end, there'll be a standard DRM multimedia format whether it's "endorsed" by Open Web people or not; if browsers don't build in support for it, then it'll just build support for itself, via the APIs that do exist: WebGL, WebRTC, ASM.js, etc. Consumers will get their media; they'll just be running an opaque blob of Javascript in the browser to get it, instead of the browser doing the job—cleanly—itself.
    • nitrogen 10y ago
      That opaque blob of JS wod be great compared to an opaque blob of binary code that has access to the GPU, which in turn has access to DMA...
      • gcp 10y ago
        The CDM is sandboxed in Firefox and Chrome.
• mcherm 10y ago
  The W3C standard is not about whether the DRM will exist - to some extent it will exist regardless of what decisions the W3C makes. The W3C standard is not about making DRM supported by all browsers and other tools - even if included in the standard, many makers of web technology will be locked out of DRM support. The W3C standard is simply about whether we (the "tech guys") ENDORSE the use of DRM. And it DOES make a difference: if approved, DRM will be more common than if not approved.
• frandroid 10y ago
  > We don't even need to pretend Firefox has any relevance in this particular space. Browser market share changes widely depending on which capabilities browsers have. Firefox went from 0 to web dominance in a few years because it had a more compelling offering than IE. Then Chrome beat it to its own game. Then IE was kept alive on Windows in parts because Netflix' use of Silverlight. If DRM is kept at the add-on level in some browsers, then those browsers will succeed as DRM restrictions invade the web slowly, and publishers will not be able to ignore those browsers. Even if Firefox came on board and publishers really started cracking down, I could see a DRM-free fork take hold. It could be called Firefork, actually. :)
  • rockdoe 10y ago
    Mozilla themselves publish a DRM-free version. You have to go look for it, but it exists.
• jrochkind1 10y ago
  Why do you think the pro-DRM forces want it to be an inter-operable standard with W3C approval? Those would be the same reasons the anti-DRM forces don't.
• wyager 10y ago
  We should make DRM as expensive, difficult, and unwieldy to use as possible. We need not and should not standardize the use of things that are detrimental. "Oh, hackers will always be able to break into systems. So instead of making them do it ad-hoc, let's just create a standardized backdoor on every system. It will be less work for everyone."
  • inimino 10y ago
    You're talking about the very people who build the systems here, not hackers. Standards bodies facilitate the work of implementers, they are not regulatory agencies.
  • ubersoldat2k7 10y ago
    Then only big medias companies will be the only ones able to reach as many users as possible. You have no idea of how expensive it's right now to target just browsers. Small producers will be constrained to only publishing trough their channels/platforms.
• syshum 10y ago
  >>>The W3C exists as place for these companies to work out interoperability standards. Web for All The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability. Web on Everything The number of different kinds of devices that can access the Web has grown immensely. Mobile phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, interactive television systems, voice response systems, kiosks and even certain domestic appliances can all access the Web. https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission EME and DRM violate the Stated mission of the W3C
• Iv 10y ago
  Openness is not something one actor decrees. It is something promoted by a whole ecosystem. If W3C is the only opponent to DRMs, yes, it won't amount to enough resistance. If Firefox alone refuses to implement W3C-approved DRM standards, yes, it won't amount to enough resistance. But if Apple does a DRM tech in Safari, that it is not approved by W3C, that it is not implemented in Firefox, how do you think they will get it into Chrome and IE? Heh, they'll have to pay a lot of money to Google and MS, or to accept reciprocal agreements, segmenting their markets, complicating the development of their tech. It will slow them down, like it has so far. And if it slows them enough that they move slower than the tech they want to regulate, we win. So yes, the W3C is just a stone thrown in the middle of the stream, trying to slow it down. It won't make much by itself. But at least it knows it wants to be a part of the dam.