5 ms·

> The whole 'good guys' routine with Cisco, Google, Mozilla stepping up to fight the evil 'malcorp' for justice was pretty embarrassing. Yep. If anyone wants

> The whole 'good guys' routine with Cisco, Google, Mozilla stepping up to fight the evil 'malcorp' for justice was pretty embarrassing. Yep. If anyone wants to know what Google and Mozilla would do in the face of corporations closing off the Internet, you can look at what they _actually did_ with Encrypted Media Extensions.

shawnz 8y ago
EME was made to discourage the creation of proprietary systems for adding DRM, not to appease corporations.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  so DRM is OK as long as it's enclosed within a standardised protocol?
  - detaro 8y ago
    EME is the better option if you believe DRM is going to happen one way or the other: it can be contained and ideally used cross-platform, not just on blessed end-devices. EME is bad if you believe DRM would die/be less common if no standard existed.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      from an economic perspective, I'd rather DRM be as expensive to utilise as possible. A world where media conglomerates have to spend money keeping their DRM up-to-date on every new end-user device is one where they may be more likely to think about the cost/benefit of alternative options.
      - davrosthedalek 8y ago
        They will only keep it up-to-date on those with enough market share. No Linux. Maybe Mac. For the slightly smaller players, on mobile, maybe only Iphone, or Iphone + Flagship Android.
        beaconstudios 8y ago
        which when added up provides a viable market segment for a company that does not insist on DRM. Especially as the mobile device market continues to fragment.
        pas 8y ago
        Mozilla decided that providing this feature serves their users better than not providing it. Especially that users can turn it off. ( https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html ) Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. (Though I'm only guessing, if you have direct knowledge of the what and why, please do share.)
        wolfgke 8y ago
        > Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. The kind of users who are not opposed against DRM already have lots of browsers to choose between. On the other hand, people who are will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation.
        icebraining 8y ago
        And then there are people like me, who are opposed to DRM, yet don't feel betrayed. If you're opposed to a browser that can be used by DRM modules, Firefox was already not an option, since it supported NPAPI, and therefore DRM as Flash, Silverlight, etc. If you were using Firefox, you were already accepting that compromise. EME is simply a continuation of the status quo.
        pas 8y ago
        > will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation. Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users?
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > EME is the better option if you believe DRM is going to happen one way or the other Waterboarding is the better option if you believe that torture is going to happen one way or the other.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        That analogy doesn't work because the people doing the waterboarding have the power to choose not to use torture in the first place. Whereas the W3C can't choose for content producers to not use DRM--they will do it regardless.
        wolfgke 8y ago
        > That analogy doesn't work because the people doing the waterboarding have the power to choose not to use torture in the first place. The Hollywood studios also have the power not to enforce having to use DRM on their licensees.
        icebraining 8y ago
        Right, but nobody is defending them.
    - Daiz 8y ago
      >ideally used cross-platform, not just on blessed end-devices. Tough luck with that though since EME only specifies how to communicate with DRM, and the actual DRM consists of multiple 100% proprietary black boxes that only work on blessed end devices and browsers. And since different browsers have different black boxes, you need to play ball with Apple, Google, Microsoft, and every other unique DRM vendor. EME is a disgrace that should have never come to pass. Premium media should rather be forced to peddle their own clients entirely separate from browsers if they insist on non-cross-platform black box bullshit. I'm not against content protection in itself, but EME was 100% marketed on false pretenses because it's just as much of a proprietary plugin system than what came before, with just as terrible cross-platform story too. If instead we had content protection schemes implemented in eg. WebAssembly, then we could actually talk about a cross-platform system that also doesn't immediately close out smaller browser vendors from the market.
- cyphar 8y ago
  DRM is fundamentally proprietary. Just because the container around it is defined in a standard does not in any way discourage the creation of proprietary systems -- it by definition facilitates them (and therefore appeases corporations that produce DRM content). The whole "DRM will happen one way or another, EME is better" is only an acceptable argument if you don't have an issue with DRM (because then you can argue that EME is "nicer" than non-EME because EME is a "standard form" of DRM). Making it frustrating for people to access DRM content results in a distrust of DRM vendors and a general dislike of DRM -- which is (in my view) a positive outcome. Facilitating DRM in a way that makes it much easier for people to view it is not a neutral position in a world where "DRM is inevitable".

shawnz 8y ago

EME was made to discourage the creation of proprietary systems for adding DRM, not to appease corporations.

beaconstudios 8y ago
so DRM is OK as long as it's enclosed within a standardised protocol?
- detaro 8y ago
  EME is the better option if you believe DRM is going to happen one way or the other: it can be contained and ideally used cross-platform, not just on blessed end-devices. EME is bad if you believe DRM would die/be less common if no standard existed.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    from an economic perspective, I'd rather DRM be as expensive to utilise as possible. A world where media conglomerates have to spend money keeping their DRM up-to-date on every new end-user device is one where they may be more likely to think about the cost/benefit of alternative options.
    - davrosthedalek 8y ago
      They will only keep it up-to-date on those with enough market share. No Linux. Maybe Mac. For the slightly smaller players, on mobile, maybe only Iphone, or Iphone + Flagship Android.
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        which when added up provides a viable market segment for a company that does not insist on DRM. Especially as the mobile device market continues to fragment.
        pas 8y ago
        Mozilla decided that providing this feature serves their users better than not providing it. Especially that users can turn it off. ( https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html ) Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. (Though I'm only guessing, if you have direct knowledge of the what and why, please do share.)
        wolfgke 8y ago
        > Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. The kind of users who are not opposed against DRM already have lots of browsers to choose between. On the other hand, people who are will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation.
        icebraining 8y ago
        And then there are people like me, who are opposed to DRM, yet don't feel betrayed. If you're opposed to a browser that can be used by DRM modules, Firefox was already not an option, since it supported NPAPI, and therefore DRM as Flash, Silverlight, etc. If you were using Firefox, you were already accepting that compromise. EME is simply a continuation of the status quo.
        pas 8y ago
        > will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation. Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users?
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > EME is the better option if you believe DRM is going to happen one way or the other Waterboarding is the better option if you believe that torture is going to happen one way or the other.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      That analogy doesn't work because the people doing the waterboarding have the power to choose not to use torture in the first place. Whereas the W3C can't choose for content producers to not use DRM--they will do it regardless.
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > That analogy doesn't work because the people doing the waterboarding have the power to choose not to use torture in the first place. The Hollywood studios also have the power not to enforce having to use DRM on their licensees.
        icebraining 8y ago
        Right, but nobody is defending them.
  - Daiz 8y ago
    >ideally used cross-platform, not just on blessed end-devices. Tough luck with that though since EME only specifies how to communicate with DRM, and the actual DRM consists of multiple 100% proprietary black boxes that only work on blessed end devices and browsers. And since different browsers have different black boxes, you need to play ball with Apple, Google, Microsoft, and every other unique DRM vendor. EME is a disgrace that should have never come to pass. Premium media should rather be forced to peddle their own clients entirely separate from browsers if they insist on non-cross-platform black box bullshit. I'm not against content protection in itself, but EME was 100% marketed on false pretenses because it's just as much of a proprietary plugin system than what came before, with just as terrible cross-platform story too. If instead we had content protection schemes implemented in eg. WebAssembly, then we could actually talk about a cross-platform system that also doesn't immediately close out smaller browser vendors from the market.
cyphar 8y ago
DRM is fundamentally proprietary. Just because the container around it is defined in a standard does not in any way discourage the creation of proprietary systems -- it by definition facilitates them (and therefore appeases corporations that produce DRM content). The whole "DRM will happen one way or another, EME is better" is only an acceptable argument if you don't have an issue with DRM (because then you can argue that EME is "nicer" than non-EME because EME is a "standard form" of DRM). Making it frustrating for people to access DRM content results in a distrust of DRM vendors and a general dislike of DRM -- which is (in my view) a positive outcome. Facilitating DRM in a way that makes it much easier for people to view it is not a neutral position in a world where "DRM is inevitable".