3 ms·
No, it won't allow websites to provide their own DRM implementation! The proposal only provides an interface to the HTMLMediaElement to be used by the website
by fafner 13y ago
No, it won't allow websites to provide their own DRM implementation! The proposal only provides an interface to the HTMLMediaElement to be used by the website to talk to a restrictions module inside the browser. It does not specify how the restrictions module is implemented.
It also does not define a common API to load such a module in a browser. In fact the module can also be built into the browser. Which is exactly what Microsoft will be doing with their PlayReady for the Internet Explorer.
An open source browser would have to rely on the DRM module to do all the video decoding and rendering. If the module handles the unencrypted stream back to the browser then one could simply change the browser to dump the stream. A browser would also have to make sure that other JavaScript can't access the unencrypted content. So no more funny graphic effects with videos rendered onto canvas or WebGL textures.
This proposal will destroy the open web and make it rely on closed source binary blobs. A free software browser will end up being useless because it will be excluded from most of the content. Who would want to use Firefox or Chromium if they can't access YouTube? When we start to add DRM for media elements then how long can it be until publishers demand DRM for text and image content? And what argumentative position would the W3C have to refuse it?
With Firefox market share decreasing and proprietary browsers like Chrome, IE, Safari increasing we are in a really bad position. Microsoft can simply push their PlayReady in IE and provide plugins for Chrome and Safari. Netflix is already using PlayReady. So no change for them. And then Firefox is fucked. Linux is fucked.
And how long until Google moves YouTube to DRM? Google is involved in the design of the DRM proposal. If DRM is in HTML5 then it's just a simple step for them.
That's why we have to oppose DRM in HTML5 and keep the web open. It is sad that Tim Berners-Lee has given up on the open web. But I won't and I hope Mozilla won't and I hope you and others won't either.
- azakai 13y ago> That's why we have to oppose DRM in HTML5 and keep the web open. It is sad that Tim Berners-Lee has given up on the open web. But I won't and I hope Mozilla won't and I hope you and others won't either. Fully agree. I think the focus of the effort should be to lobby the 2 browser vendors that are driving this DRM effort, Google and Microsoft (see 'Editors' section on 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... ). The only way to stop this DRM proposal is to have it not be implemented in browsers. The only way to stop that is to convince Google and Microsoft to stop pushing it.
- acdha 13y ago> With Firefox market share decreasing and proprietary browsers like Chrome, IE, Safari increasing Opposing EME will simply keep Microsoft and Adobe uncharged of the web video market and keep that market smaller thB the Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. stores. The last time someone took a “principled” stance like this and blocked H.264 in Firefox, remember what happened? Flash got many extra years of life and Firefox lost marketshare. I'd prefer we stop pretending this is anything other than a minor shift in the status quo and focus on the larger anti-DRM campaign. The right place to focus is the bottom-line: educating consumers about the restrictions and supporting alternatives. As long as people are paying billions of dollars through native apps, you're fooling yourself to believe that this EME opposition is doing anything but supporting competitors to the open web.