12 ms·
The problem is that if they implement Widevine they also need to license FairPlay, PlayReady, and Adobe's DRM schemes as well. Otherwise YouTube is effectively
by kmeisthax 3y ago
The problem is that if they implement Widevine they also need to license FairPlay, PlayReady, and Adobe's DRM schemes as well. Otherwise YouTube is effectively Chrome-exclusive.
The reason why EME didn't lead to a catastrophic downfall of freedom on the Web is purely a function of DRM being expensive to license. Netflix can afford it but not YouTube, and YouTube creators generally don't want it[0].
Related note: if YouTube starts putting DRM on videos then every creator that's ever used Kevin Macleod music is now violating the Creative Commons anti-DRM clause. YouTube actually added a feature to mark your video as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, so they'd be at least marginally aware of this clause, so they'd have to at least make DRM opt-in.
[0] To be clear, this is moreso that what YouTubers are actually worried about is reuploading content back to YouTube and monetizing it. They don't care so much if you have a stream-ripped copy on your computer that you just watch on your own. But things like Content ID actually work way better for preventing reuploading.
- extraduder_ire 3y agoWidevine works in firefox, based on the plugin it asks you to enable.
- kragen 3y agohey, that's a really good point that i hadn't thought of: either whatever is required to watch a youtube video isn't a 'technological measure that effectively controls access to a work' or it's illegal for youtube to host all those videos using incompetech music
- jojobas 3y agoI'd say at this point youtube has so much more market capture than any non-chrome browser, they probably could just say "get Chrome or gtfo" and not even notice the audience dip.
- dredmorbius 3y agoiPhone / iOS is Safari-only. That's a non-negligible market segment. And an affluent one.
- flangola7 3y agoIt would break every service that uses embedded YouTube videos on custom viewers.
- Illotus 3y agoThis would basically guarantee that regulators would inevitably separate either Youtube or Chrome from Google.
- jeffparsons 3y agoI'd love to believe this, but said regulators don't seem particularly energetic these days.
- oefnak 3y agoIn the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram <----> Signal <----> WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
- anticensor 3y ago> Telegram <----> Signal <----> WhatsApp More like Telegram (non E2EE modes)<---->Discord<---->Guilded and Signal<---->Telegram (E2EE modes)<---->WhatsApp.
- Canada 3y agoThis isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot. Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
- RugnirViking 3y agoI'm not sure I understand? all three of those apps are end-to-end encrypted. Surely the recipient's phone has the key to decode and the company does not?
- veave 3y ago
- bippihippi1 3y agoeven 1% of a billion dollars is a lot of money
- simonh 3y ago$10 million? That's maybe 20 developers for a year, including costs of employment, office space, IT services, etc. Less that 1% of Youtube's employees. Chump change.