8 ms·

Since nobody else is saying it. The issue with this proposal is that it it creates a segmented web, whereby if a vendor does not ship a "CDM" for a particular

by dthunt 15y ago

Since nobody else is saying it. The issue with this proposal is that it it creates a segmented web, whereby if a vendor does not ship a "CDM" for a particular platform, you will never see DRM'd web content for that platform. To those of you who are thinking "Woo! Now there's any easy way to get my license keys!" you have missed the part where there's a media layer interacting with a DRM stack - this is essentially the same situation as today. The only thing this does is give blessing to break principles of universal computing. I am opposed.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
What's your alternative?
- dchest 15y ago
  No DRM?
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    That was already an alternative. One of the editors on this proposal is a Netflix employee; that should tell you something about the viability of that option.
    - dchest 15y ago
      Of course Netflix wants to control video steaming. They are free to accomplish their business goals by any other means: making their users download some software, shipping locked hardware to users, or sending employees to people's homes to make sure they don't copy anything. They are not free, however, to break the Web.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        They're free to try, though, as we all are. It's up to W3C to find value or not.
        dchest 15y ago
        You're saying it as if I oppose proposals. We're discussing the content of the proposal itself, not the action of proposing.
        freehunter 15y ago
        I'm just pushing the responsibility of action from Google et al to the W3C. I don't blame Netflix for wanting a better way to stream DRM'd videos. I would blame the W3C if they allowed Netflix to dictate what video on the web will consist of, for better or for worse.
        dchest 15y ago
        With this I agree.
      - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        I'm starting to come over on your side a little bit. I don't care as much about DRM as you do, but I do care about breaking the Web. I'm not convinced this does that though. To support this a user agent will need to implement one or more CDM that may include communicating with a DRM chip. For devices without the chip the web page won't render properly. We agree that this is undesirable, but it doesn't seem any different to me than the Capture API[1] that only works on devices with a camera or microphone. Convince me, I'm leaning towards your position here. [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/
        dchest 15y ago
        This is a good argument. I think the difference is that without camera there's absolutely no other technical way a website (that uses cameras) can provide their services. It's an enabling technology, in a sense that it moves progress forward. With DRM chip, there is the other way -- streaming video without restrictions.
        nitrogen 15y ago
        One can always simulate a camera or microphone. Maybe you're mute, and you use text to speech software that presents itself to the OS APIs underlying the Capture API as a microphone. Enshrining technology that has no other purpose than to restrict access to one's own computer into an international "open" standard is unacceptable. At some level in hardware or software there will always be a closed blob to prevent capturing the stream, so there will never be an open software and hardware implementation. Giving DRM the blessing of the international web community is, effectively, giving Hollywood unfettered permission to be just as obstinate, manipulative, and anti-consumerist as ever.
      - Silhouette 15y ago
        > They are not free, however, to break the Web. I don't understand this perspective. As far as I can see, nothing here prevents regular, un-DRM'd content being sent as HTML5 video just as it can be today. This seems to be adding an extra option, which is to send protected content as well. There is clearly a demand from suppliers for this facility. As a consumer, your options right now are to accept the extra content protected, or not at all. You do not have the third alternative of accepting it unprotected, whether you think you should or not. A content provider is under no obligation to give you their material on your terms just because you would like them to. Declining to give you content at all is not breaking the Web, it's just saying they don't want you as a customer, and if you want to enjoy their content, that's your problem more than theirs. Ultimately, technology is neutral, and how it is applied is what counts. A standardised version of protected video potentially allows more people access to more content using more diverse business models. Sure, some people will always point at that and say it will be abused in dubious ways. However, the most effective way to defeat any such abuses is to vote with your wallet. If the information-wants-to-be-free crowd are right and there really is plenty of profit to be made on unrestricted content and a large market segment who won't put up with DRM, then the DRM will die. On the other hand, reasonably effective copy protection also makes low-cost models such as pay-per-view/rental or all-you-can-eat subscription commercially viable. That could very much be in the interests of a lot of people who don't want to pay the full price for a permanent copy of something they'll probably only ever watch once anyway. Such deals are never going to fly in today's culture if the terms are trivially violated, and this has been a serious bottleneck in terms of getting the best content onto on-line providers and ultimately to consumers for them to enjoy.
- dthunt 15y ago
  Not accepting it as part of HTML5. Things continue as they - the real cost of these DRM layers isn't the bit of browser glue that issues an http request for a key.
AndrewDucker 15y ago
So, much the same as at the moment where if there isn't a version of Flash (or Silverlight) for a particular platform then you can't watch Netflix/Hulu/Whatever.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  Point me to a platform without Flash support. EDIT: I meant, show me a platform where users can't get Flash for free easily. AFAIR on Windows, Unix and MacOS (I used only the first two) you can just download a free player...
  - planb 15y ago
    http://www.apple.com/ios/ http://www.apple.com/ios/ However - I don't think Apple would implement these extensions in Safari...
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      Ok, fair enough.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - r0s 15y ago
    My favorite underdog platform is Nintendo's 3DS. No flash support, but it does have a browser and a Netflix app.
  - lucian1900 15y ago
    Desktop linux from now on.
  - rmc 15y ago
    Any non-x86 Linux e.g. powerpc Linux, I had this problem when I installed ubuntu on an ibook. Admittedly powerpc isn't being sold as much as it was.
- dchest 15y ago
stdgy 15y ago
I'm unsure what you mean by this phrase: "The only thing this does is give blessing to break principles of universal computing." By Universal Computing, are you referring to accessibility on the web? Platform accessibility?
- dthunt 15y ago
  I'm referring to the power of the web to provide a uniform and accessible experience, yes.

by dthunt 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

What's your alternative?

dchest 15y ago
No DRM?
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  That was already an alternative. One of the editors on this proposal is a Netflix employee; that should tell you something about the viability of that option.
  - dchest 15y ago
    Of course Netflix wants to control video steaming. They are free to accomplish their business goals by any other means: making their users download some software, shipping locked hardware to users, or sending employees to people's homes to make sure they don't copy anything. They are not free, however, to break the Web.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      They're free to try, though, as we all are. It's up to W3C to find value or not.
      - dchest 15y ago
        You're saying it as if I oppose proposals. We're discussing the content of the proposal itself, not the action of proposing.
        freehunter 15y ago
        I'm just pushing the responsibility of action from Google et al to the W3C. I don't blame Netflix for wanting a better way to stream DRM'd videos. I would blame the W3C if they allowed Netflix to dictate what video on the web will consist of, for better or for worse.
        dchest 15y ago
        With this I agree.
    - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
      I'm starting to come over on your side a little bit. I don't care as much about DRM as you do, but I do care about breaking the Web. I'm not convinced this does that though. To support this a user agent will need to implement one or more CDM that may include communicating with a DRM chip. For devices without the chip the web page won't render properly. We agree that this is undesirable, but it doesn't seem any different to me than the Capture API[1] that only works on devices with a camera or microphone. Convince me, I'm leaning towards your position here. [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-capture-api-20100401/
      - dchest 15y ago
        This is a good argument. I think the difference is that without camera there's absolutely no other technical way a website (that uses cameras) can provide their services. It's an enabling technology, in a sense that it moves progress forward. With DRM chip, there is the other way -- streaming video without restrictions.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        One can always simulate a camera or microphone. Maybe you're mute, and you use text to speech software that presents itself to the OS APIs underlying the Capture API as a microphone. Enshrining technology that has no other purpose than to restrict access to one's own computer into an international "open" standard is unacceptable. At some level in hardware or software there will always be a closed blob to prevent capturing the stream, so there will never be an open software and hardware implementation. Giving DRM the blessing of the international web community is, effectively, giving Hollywood unfettered permission to be just as obstinate, manipulative, and anti-consumerist as ever.
    - Silhouette 15y ago
      > They are not free, however, to break the Web. I don't understand this perspective. As far as I can see, nothing here prevents regular, un-DRM'd content being sent as HTML5 video just as it can be today. This seems to be adding an extra option, which is to send protected content as well. There is clearly a demand from suppliers for this facility. As a consumer, your options right now are to accept the extra content protected, or not at all. You do not have the third alternative of accepting it unprotected, whether you think you should or not. A content provider is under no obligation to give you their material on your terms just because you would like them to. Declining to give you content at all is not breaking the Web, it's just saying they don't want you as a customer, and if you want to enjoy their content, that's your problem more than theirs. Ultimately, technology is neutral, and how it is applied is what counts. A standardised version of protected video potentially allows more people access to more content using more diverse business models. Sure, some people will always point at that and say it will be abused in dubious ways. However, the most effective way to defeat any such abuses is to vote with your wallet. If the information-wants-to-be-free crowd are right and there really is plenty of profit to be made on unrestricted content and a large market segment who won't put up with DRM, then the DRM will die. On the other hand, reasonably effective copy protection also makes low-cost models such as pay-per-view/rental or all-you-can-eat subscription commercially viable. That could very much be in the interests of a lot of people who don't want to pay the full price for a permanent copy of something they'll probably only ever watch once anyway. Such deals are never going to fly in today's culture if the terms are trivially violated, and this has been a serious bottleneck in terms of getting the best content onto on-line providers and ultimately to consumers for them to enjoy.
dthunt 15y ago
Not accepting it as part of HTML5. Things continue as they - the real cost of these DRM layers isn't the bit of browser glue that issues an http request for a key.

AndrewDucker 15y ago

So, much the same as at the moment where if there isn't a version of Flash (or Silverlight) for a particular platform then you can't watch Netflix/Hulu/Whatever.

TeMPOraL 15y ago
Point me to a platform without Flash support. EDIT: I meant, show me a platform where users can't get Flash for free easily. AFAIR on Windows, Unix and MacOS (I used only the first two) you can just download a free player...
- planb 15y ago
  http://www.apple.com/ios/ http://www.apple.com/ios/ However - I don't think Apple would implement these extensions in Safari...
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    Ok, fair enough.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- r0s 15y ago
  My favorite underdog platform is Nintendo's 3DS. No flash support, but it does have a browser and a Netflix app.
- lucian1900 15y ago
  Desktop linux from now on.
- rmc 15y ago
  Any non-x86 Linux e.g. powerpc Linux, I had this problem when I installed ubuntu on an ibook. Admittedly powerpc isn't being sold as much as it was.
dchest 15y ago

stdgy 15y ago

I'm unsure what you mean by this phrase: "The only thing this does is give blessing to break principles of universal computing." By Universal Computing, are you referring to accessibility on the web? Platform accessibility?

dthunt 15y ago
I'm referring to the power of the web to provide a uniform and accessible experience, yes.