6 ms·

EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big differ

EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big difference if you want to implement this spec in a browser. Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in the article.

shmerl 14y ago
It's all just an empty demagogy in lawyers style. EME is about DRM, but the language was made generic to avoid mentioning DRM. So to make things fair and clear - EME is intended to serve the cause of those who push DRM on the Web. And it's enough of a reason to oppose EME.
- jshen 14y ago
  Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies. Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Aren't those plugins used already by those who rely on DRM? So what do you prefer, to make DRM (a dying unethical trend) part of the HTML5, or to retain its area of influence to plugins? Users know that plugins should be better avoided. They represent external, not very trustworthy entities for the web experience. This goes along with DRM which should be avoided for similar reasons. Pushing DRM into the browsers would only obscure this matter. EME is therefore not serving any good purpose for the open web and should be opposed. It's not like users who use DRM will suddenly get pushed into plugins or external applications. They already use them! And those who don't use and don't want to use DRM don't need that junk in the browser. And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.
    - jshen 14y ago
      Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!
      - shmerl 14y ago
        > Users will get pushed into native apps. I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the users who you claim have no idea what's going on.
        jshen 14y ago
        Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.
        shmerl 14y ago
        Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good purpose to isolate DRM from the normal technologies. So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".

shmerl 14y ago

It's all just an empty demagogy in lawyers style. EME is about DRM, but the language was made generic to avoid mentioning DRM. So to make things fair and clear - EME is intended to serve the cause of those who push DRM on the Web. And it's enough of a reason to oppose EME.

jshen 14y ago
Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies. Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.
- shmerl 14y ago
  Aren't those plugins used already by those who rely on DRM? So what do you prefer, to make DRM (a dying unethical trend) part of the HTML5, or to retain its area of influence to plugins? Users know that plugins should be better avoided. They represent external, not very trustworthy entities for the web experience. This goes along with DRM which should be avoided for similar reasons. Pushing DRM into the browsers would only obscure this matter. EME is therefore not serving any good purpose for the open web and should be opposed. It's not like users who use DRM will suddenly get pushed into plugins or external applications. They already use them! And those who don't use and don't want to use DRM don't need that junk in the browser. And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.
  - jshen 14y ago
    Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!
    - shmerl 14y ago
      > Users will get pushed into native apps. I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the users who you claim have no idea what's going on.
      - jshen 14y ago
        Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.
        shmerl 14y ago
        Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good purpose to isolate DRM from the normal technologies. So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".