3 ms·

Can someone explain this in a way that assumes no prior knowledge of Widevine or EME?

by raldi 10y ago

josteink 10y ago
It's HTML DRM. Most technical people are vocally opposed to it and don't want to leave a single trace in a single server log contributing to the idea that it is widely accepted and available. A browser not only implementing DRM, but leaving you no way to disable it is seriously anti-user. But this is Google, so go figure.
- raldi 10y ago
  So I know what HTML is, and I know what DRM is, but I don't understand what you mean by "HTML DRM". And googling [widevine] is not helping.
  - josteink 10y ago
    HTML has always been an open standard. Every part has been open. Just by reading the spec, you could implement a fully functional web-browser. There were no secrets bits or black boxes. So people went ahead did just that. They made new and exciting web-browsers, with new and novel features, on lots and lots of platforms. And that's why the web was a success: It was open to use by people. It was open for new clients. Nothing was locked down. With DRM in the HTML spec comes a big, black box: You can no longer implement a fully compliant web browser from the spec alone. You'll need closed-source blobs from DRM vendors, if they are willing to provide them to you, and if they bother about compatibility with your browser, your OS, not to mention your HW architecture. The web used to be 100% open and 100% cross-platform. The single move of adding DRM instead makes it a platform which now will only be 100% "compliant" in browsers blessed by DRM vendors, on OSes blessed by DRM vendors, on HW architectures which the DRM-vendors has bothered to implement DRM for. It's a complete turn-around. A 100% FOSS web-browser can no longer be made. It basically has put the 3 top DRM-vendors (Apple, Google, MS) in 100% control of which people, and on which operating systems, can get to have a full web experience. I guess I don't need to argue why this is bad. You can take it from here, right?
    - floatboth 10y ago
      No. No one is required to ship a DRM module. You don't need a DRM module if you don't want to watch Netflix. The spec defines a standard interface to these modules. This is not worse than NPAPI.
      - alexvoda 10y ago
        From a technical and standards point of view, indeed it's not worse than NPAPI.You could argue that without Flash and other plugins you could not get the full web experience in the past. And therefore, in terms of browsers, OS's and HW platforms were at the mercy of Adobe, Microsoft, etc. . But as I argued in my other response, EMEs are worse because they send the wrong message about DRM.
  - alexvoda 10y ago
    Ever since HTML5 you can embed media in HTML pages without using plugins(Flash/Silverlight/etc.). EME refers to DRM for that media content. By definition, this can only be implemented with a user hostile blob. For all those who do not use Netflix and other similar services the point of disabling EME is to: 1.prevent the very presence of that blob on the computer (There is no way of knowing what that blob does. For all we know it may keep tabs on what you watch for advertising/spying purposes or even unmask your Tor traffic) and 2.to report to servers that "this browser does not support media with DRM. Require DRM for your content and you will loose this user." It is mostly so that places like YouTube/Dailymotion/etc. don't get any ideas about requiring DRM for their content. Of course, by disabling it you will not be able to use platforms that require. EMEs are both better and worse than than previous alternative plugins. They are better because they are sand boxed and their capabilities limited. So less chances of 3'rd party security issues (of course the blob can itself be malicious). On the other hand by being pre-enabled it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that DRM is ok. It sends the message that browser makers are ok with DRM. It sends the message that people are ok with DRM without them ever being asked about it. With plugins, the content distributor was on his own when trying to convince users to install DRM on their computers. DRM is wrong for many reasons I will not expand upon here. Mozilla at least is not ok with DRM but they succumbed to market pressure (browser that does not support Netflix bleeds users). There is a conspiracy theory that they sold out and are ok with DRM but I find it hard to believe. It is more likely they are vary bad at communicating. And people are not ok with it as demonstrated by the failure of DRM in the audio industry. If you do not want platforms like Youtube to decide for you what screen or projector you can use to watch the content they host, one of the signals you can send is to disable EMEs in your browser. Chrome now makes that impossible. Replace this sentence with your preferred profanities addressed towards Google.

Can someone explain this in a way that assumes no prior knowledge of Widevine or EME?

by raldi 10y ago

Can someone explain this in a way that assumes no prior knowledge of Widevine or EME?

It's HTML DRM. Most technical people are vocally opposed to it and don't want to leave a single trace in a single server log contributing to the idea that it is widely accepted and available. A browser not only implementing DRM, but leaving you no way to disable it is seriously anti-user. But this is Google, so go figure.

raldi 10y ago
So I know what HTML is, and I know what DRM is, but I don't understand what you mean by "HTML DRM". And googling [widevine] is not helping.
- josteink 10y ago
  HTML has always been an open standard. Every part has been open. Just by reading the spec, you could implement a fully functional web-browser. There were no secrets bits or black boxes. So people went ahead did just that. They made new and exciting web-browsers, with new and novel features, on lots and lots of platforms. And that's why the web was a success: It was open to use by people. It was open for new clients. Nothing was locked down. With DRM in the HTML spec comes a big, black box: You can no longer implement a fully compliant web browser from the spec alone. You'll need closed-source blobs from DRM vendors, if they are willing to provide them to you, and if they bother about compatibility with your browser, your OS, not to mention your HW architecture. The web used to be 100% open and 100% cross-platform. The single move of adding DRM instead makes it a platform which now will only be 100% "compliant" in browsers blessed by DRM vendors, on OSes blessed by DRM vendors, on HW architectures which the DRM-vendors has bothered to implement DRM for. It's a complete turn-around. A 100% FOSS web-browser can no longer be made. It basically has put the 3 top DRM-vendors (Apple, Google, MS) in 100% control of which people, and on which operating systems, can get to have a full web experience. I guess I don't need to argue why this is bad. You can take it from here, right?
  - floatboth 10y ago
    No. No one is required to ship a DRM module. You don't need a DRM module if you don't want to watch Netflix. The spec defines a standard interface to these modules. This is not worse than NPAPI.
    - alexvoda 10y ago
      From a technical and standards point of view, indeed it's not worse than NPAPI.You could argue that without Flash and other plugins you could not get the full web experience in the past. And therefore, in terms of browsers, OS's and HW platforms were at the mercy of Adobe, Microsoft, etc. . But as I argued in my other response, EMEs are worse because they send the wrong message about DRM.
- alexvoda 10y ago
  Ever since HTML5 you can embed media in HTML pages without using plugins(Flash/Silverlight/etc.). EME refers to DRM for that media content. By definition, this can only be implemented with a user hostile blob. For all those who do not use Netflix and other similar services the point of disabling EME is to: 1.prevent the very presence of that blob on the computer (There is no way of knowing what that blob does. For all we know it may keep tabs on what you watch for advertising/spying purposes or even unmask your Tor traffic) and 2.to report to servers that "this browser does not support media with DRM. Require DRM for your content and you will loose this user." It is mostly so that places like YouTube/Dailymotion/etc. don't get any ideas about requiring DRM for their content. Of course, by disabling it you will not be able to use platforms that require. EMEs are both better and worse than than previous alternative plugins. They are better because they are sand boxed and their capabilities limited. So less chances of 3'rd party security issues (of course the blob can itself be malicious). On the other hand by being pre-enabled it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that DRM is ok. It sends the message that browser makers are ok with DRM. It sends the message that people are ok with DRM without them ever being asked about it. With plugins, the content distributor was on his own when trying to convince users to install DRM on their computers. DRM is wrong for many reasons I will not expand upon here. Mozilla at least is not ok with DRM but they succumbed to market pressure (browser that does not support Netflix bleeds users). There is a conspiracy theory that they sold out and are ok with DRM but I find it hard to believe. It is more likely they are vary bad at communicating. And people are not ok with it as demonstrated by the failure of DRM in the audio industry. If you do not want platforms like Youtube to decide for you what screen or projector you can use to watch the content they host, one of the signals you can send is to disable EMEs in your browser. Chrome now makes that impossible. Replace this sentence with your preferred profanities addressed towards Google.