10 ms·

What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be a

What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be able to do anything to sway the browser makers. What could they do?

cbhl 13y ago
Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies. I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all.
- pdonis 13y ago
  I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all. In other words, you are willing to give up freedom to get--what, exactly? Movies? Music? Eye candy? I confess I simply can't understand this point of view. People are willing to hand over the Internet to DRM and the media corporations because they can't live without the "entertainment" that Hollywood provides? People are willing to have their computers pwned just so they can watch Netflix? That appalls me.
  - toyg 13y ago
    Dude, having your computer pwned is the smallest thing people will give up for entertainment. Romans were happy to hand their Republic to an Emperor, as long as he kept the circensem coming.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      Yes, but the Romans had few other options. Today people have lots of other options.
  - cbhl 13y ago
    I'm writing this comment from a Samsung Chromebook. When I use Chrome OS; I'm already giving up my freedom. Chromium itself is open-source, but there are tons of binary blobs on this device: the accelerated graphics driver for the Mali GPU, the ARM build of Adobe Flash, and the EME implementation that makes Netflix work on my device. EME is not new. There are already devices shipping with implementations, like mine. If EME is standardized, what it means for me is that there's a chance that my device will work with all DRMed content I want to access, and not on a per-service basis. We're not talking about giving "big bad media companies" full control of the Ring 0 Hypervisor; I am still perfectly capable of flipping the virtual developer switch on my device and booting a pure version of Linux at any time. If I buy a device ships like that, I hope that future me will have the good sense to return it to the store.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      When I use Chrome OS; I'm already giving up my freedom. Yes. Why? (I don't have a Chromebook, and don't use Chrome OS, for this very reason.)
    - makomk 13y ago
      You're giving up a lot more than that. Last I heard, the existing Chrome OS implementation of HTML5 EME refuses to run unless the device is a Chromebook that's locked down to ensure no unauthorized or modified code is running anywhere on the device: enable developer mode and the CDM disables itself.
  - 8note 13y ago
    If you don't plan on using your laptop for anything outside of entertainment, being able to rewrite the software on the micro that controls the battery charging circuit is not particularly relevant or useful.
jgraham 13y ago
The WHATWG doesn't really "exist" in quite the same way that the W3C does. There isn't Process for obtaining an opinion that you can then ascribe to an organisation rather than one or more individuals. It only represents the browser makers insofar as the specs hosted at whatwg.org accurately reflect what browsers implement. Sometimes this is achived by adjusting the browsers to match the specs; oftentimes the opposite occurs. It is certainly the case that several individuals editing specs under the WHATWG banner have set out their opposition to DRM. It seems unlikely that Hixie will include it the HTML spec he edits unless, of course, we end up with something implemented in browsers that is both interoperable and open. Since "open" rather defeats the point of DRM, it's difficult to imagine that happening, however.
- justincormack 13y ago
  The W3C though is an organization you can buy. Their process is not reasonable and we should not recognise their authority. Especially after this.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.
- glhaynes 13y ago
  This vastly underestimates the importance of the massive number of users running browsers supplied by the vendor of their device/OS.
- azakai 13y ago
  EME is driven by two browser vendors, Google and Microsoft, in partnership with Netflix. See Editors section of the spec, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... Chrome and IE are the ones pushing this - so yes, the opinion of browser makers matter, but sadly the 2 biggest ones, Google and Microsoft, do not just support EME but are the ones driving it.
parasubvert 13y ago
Seemingly, the WHATWG is against this. But there's a big difference between individuals on a mailing list and broader corporate interests. It's a tragic comedy that everyone's yelling at the W3C for losing their way yet again... the WHATWG, weren't they great. Yet the WHATWG is basically a proxy for Google, Apple and Microsoft. And they have driven the W3C agenda for a long while. When you repeatedly shit on the hippies, academics, and non-browser makers that had more sway in the past at the W3C, and replace them by corporate browser makers, you weaken the antibodies that were in place. The WHATWG's presence has marginalizing other voices within the W3C and forced it to listen to its primary members - i.e. corporate, pay-to-play ones.

cbhl 13y ago

Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies. I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all.

pdonis 13y ago
I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all. In other words, you are willing to give up freedom to get--what, exactly? Movies? Music? Eye candy? I confess I simply can't understand this point of view. People are willing to hand over the Internet to DRM and the media corporations because they can't live without the "entertainment" that Hollywood provides? People are willing to have their computers pwned just so they can watch Netflix? That appalls me.
- toyg 13y ago
  Dude, having your computer pwned is the smallest thing people will give up for entertainment. Romans were happy to hand their Republic to an Emperor, as long as he kept the circensem coming.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    Yes, but the Romans had few other options. Today people have lots of other options.
- cbhl 13y ago
  I'm writing this comment from a Samsung Chromebook. When I use Chrome OS; I'm already giving up my freedom. Chromium itself is open-source, but there are tons of binary blobs on this device: the accelerated graphics driver for the Mali GPU, the ARM build of Adobe Flash, and the EME implementation that makes Netflix work on my device. EME is not new. There are already devices shipping with implementations, like mine. If EME is standardized, what it means for me is that there's a chance that my device will work with all DRMed content I want to access, and not on a per-service basis. We're not talking about giving "big bad media companies" full control of the Ring 0 Hypervisor; I am still perfectly capable of flipping the virtual developer switch on my device and booting a pure version of Linux at any time. If I buy a device ships like that, I hope that future me will have the good sense to return it to the store.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    When I use Chrome OS; I'm already giving up my freedom. Yes. Why? (I don't have a Chromebook, and don't use Chrome OS, for this very reason.)
  - makomk 13y ago
    You're giving up a lot more than that. Last I heard, the existing Chrome OS implementation of HTML5 EME refuses to run unless the device is a Chromebook that's locked down to ensure no unauthorized or modified code is running anywhere on the device: enable developer mode and the CDM disables itself.
- 8note 13y ago
  If you don't plan on using your laptop for anything outside of entertainment, being able to rewrite the software on the micro that controls the battery charging circuit is not particularly relevant or useful.

jgraham 13y ago

The WHATWG doesn't really "exist" in quite the same way that the W3C does. There isn't Process for obtaining an opinion that you can then ascribe to an organisation rather than one or more individuals. It only represents the browser makers insofar as the specs hosted at whatwg.org accurately reflect what browsers implement. Sometimes this is achived by adjusting the browsers to match the specs; oftentimes the opposite occurs. It is certainly the case that several individuals editing specs under the WHATWG banner have set out their opposition to DRM. It seems unlikely that Hixie will include it the HTML spec he edits unless, of course, we end up with something implemented in browsers that is both interoperable and open. Since "open" rather defeats the point of DRM, it's difficult to imagine that happening, however.

justincormack 13y ago
The W3C though is an organization you can buy. Their process is not reasonable and we should not recognise their authority. Especially after this.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.

glhaynes 13y ago
This vastly underestimates the importance of the massive number of users running browsers supplied by the vendor of their device/OS.
azakai 13y ago
EME is driven by two browser vendors, Google and Microsoft, in partnership with Netflix. See Editors section of the spec, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... Chrome and IE are the ones pushing this - so yes, the opinion of browser makers matter, but sadly the 2 biggest ones, Google and Microsoft, do not just support EME but are the ones driving it.

parasubvert 13y ago

Seemingly, the WHATWG is against this. But there's a big difference between individuals on a mailing list and broader corporate interests. It's a tragic comedy that everyone's yelling at the W3C for losing their way yet again... the WHATWG, weren't they great. Yet the WHATWG is basically a proxy for Google, Apple and Microsoft. And they have driven the W3C agenda for a long while. When you repeatedly shit on the hippies, academics, and non-browser makers that had more sway in the past at the W3C, and replace them by corporate browser makers, you weaken the antibodies that were in place. The WHATWG's presence has marginalizing other voices within the W3C and forced it to listen to its primary members - i.e. corporate, pay-to-play ones.