3 ms·

What you're missing is that passwords don't require blobs. The ContentDecryptionModules used for DRM on the Web are blobs. For a browser to run a blob, there

What you're missing is that passwords don't require blobs. The ContentDecryptionModules used for DRM on the Web are blobs. For a browser to run a blob, there needs to be an interface between the browser and the blob. Flash and Silverlight blobs used a standard interface: NPAPI. Any browser implementing NPAPI could run the blobs (assuming the blob was compatible with the host OS). CDMs have no such standard browser/blob interface (note that EME relates only to the Javascript environment not the actual browser code). In fact, the only browsers able to run these blobs are the ones that the CDM provider 'trusts' and is willing to provide proprietary information to in order for browser developers to get their blob working. Your independent Firefox fork will almost certainly never be able to support any major CDM; the CDM provider doesn't trust, nor care about your browser. Therefore, CDM providers arbitrarily _select_ which browsers can have access to their Web content. This is unprecedented. Content on the Web, in whatever form, has always been accessible by _any_ browser; it was merely a matter of that browser implementing the necessary standards. This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.

tptacek 10y ago
I don't think I'm missing it, so much as I'm not understanding what the material difference is between your unwillingness to run a blob on your machine versus your unwillingness to do any of the other things a business might require before issuing you a password. You are free not to run those blobs, and not to use Netflix's services. Where you lose me is the militant demand that Netflix not offer services to those willing to run the blob.
- BuuQu9hu 10y ago
  You need to address this: > This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea. Yes, both a CDM and passworded accounts limit access to content. The difference is that CDM providers are only letting certain Web browsers view the content. Passworded accounts have no such limitation. The open Web is dependent on any conceivable browser being interoperable with ALL Web content. Any barriers to interoperability are only technical. Third-parties, like a CDM provider, cannot setup arbitrary barriers. Otherwise, it is no longer "open". THIS is the definition of 'open Web'; it has nothing to do with authorization as in subscription only websites.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    EME strictly reduces the amount of "closed" code on the web. Without EME, more of the content protection stack is proprietary, and the trusted code base that enables content protection is larger. This is a very simple point that I think we all understand; I don't understand why EME's opposition thinks they can dodge it.
    - BuuQu9hu 10y ago
      You need to address this: > This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.
    - chii 10y ago
      The assumption you make is that DRM _must_ exist in one form or another. I, as an open web proponent, want to make it difficult for any business to add DRM to their media offering. by making DRM a difficult system to implement due to proprietary plugins, it increases the perceived value of just offering it without DRM. but by having EME a standard, it makes it a no brainer to use DRM, because their customers will automatically have it as part of a browser. the cost of DRM is then externalised, and even legitimised such that it's the norm.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I have no trouble understanding the strategic goal nerds have of trying to use standards body formalities and browser vendors to retard the development of DRM software they disfavor. There's nothing wrong with that (at least, nothing more wrong with it than all the other things that are wrong with standards groups). Where you lose me is the notion that there's an intrinsic ethical imperative not to provide attachment points in standards for DRM. That doesn't ring true.
nkristoffersen 10y ago
Weird, the internet I know and love has plenty of issues with browser compatibility :-)

tptacek 10y ago

I don't think I'm missing it, so much as I'm not understanding what the material difference is between your unwillingness to run a blob on your machine versus your unwillingness to do any of the other things a business might require before issuing you a password. You are free not to run those blobs, and not to use Netflix's services. Where you lose me is the militant demand that Netflix not offer services to those willing to run the blob.

BuuQu9hu 10y ago
You need to address this: > This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea. Yes, both a CDM and passworded accounts limit access to content. The difference is that CDM providers are only letting certain Web browsers view the content. Passworded accounts have no such limitation. The open Web is dependent on any conceivable browser being interoperable with ALL Web content. Any barriers to interoperability are only technical. Third-parties, like a CDM provider, cannot setup arbitrary barriers. Otherwise, it is no longer "open". THIS is the definition of 'open Web'; it has nothing to do with authorization as in subscription only websites.
- tptacek 10y ago
  EME strictly reduces the amount of "closed" code on the web. Without EME, more of the content protection stack is proprietary, and the trusted code base that enables content protection is larger. This is a very simple point that I think we all understand; I don't understand why EME's opposition thinks they can dodge it.
  - BuuQu9hu 10y ago
    You need to address this: > This is the idea of the open Web. CDMs are literally the opposite idea.
  - chii 10y ago
    The assumption you make is that DRM _must_ exist in one form or another. I, as an open web proponent, want to make it difficult for any business to add DRM to their media offering. by making DRM a difficult system to implement due to proprietary plugins, it increases the perceived value of just offering it without DRM. but by having EME a standard, it makes it a no brainer to use DRM, because their customers will automatically have it as part of a browser. the cost of DRM is then externalised, and even legitimised such that it's the norm.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I have no trouble understanding the strategic goal nerds have of trying to use standards body formalities and browser vendors to retard the development of DRM software they disfavor. There's nothing wrong with that (at least, nothing more wrong with it than all the other things that are wrong with standards groups). Where you lose me is the notion that there's an intrinsic ethical imperative not to provide attachment points in standards for DRM. That doesn't ring true.

nkristoffersen 10y ago

Weird, the internet I know and love has plenty of issues with browser compatibility :-)