4 ms·
> if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C, better for everyone to use an interopera
by conductor 13y ago
> if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C, better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible, and better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source, and available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box.
I don't think DRM and free software may coexist, and I don't mean ideologically: just the DRM would be breakable.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> I don't think DRM and free software may coexist They clearly can coexist and interact, but you can't use Free software to implement DRM without defeating the purpose of DRM. The point of the standard isn't to support Free DRM, its to provide a standard interface for browsers, which may be Free software, to interact with systems providing DRM, so that a desire to use DRM for particular content does not lead to a need to implement anything besides the DRM portion outside of standards-compliant browsers.
- hdevalence 13y agoNo, they cannot coexist. Your claim is that the standard allows for only the DRM implementation to be proprietary. But a DRM implementation on an otherwise Free system is totally ineffective -- just grab the output. This is why things like HDCP exist. DRM implementations require nonfree components at all lower levels, i.e., a need to implement things besides the DRM portion outside of standards-compliant browsers.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pyalot2 13y agoThe DRM in HTML-DRM is called the CDM (content decryption module) and it would be supplied as a proprietary blob/OS API. In order for the browser to work (with images, audio, video, fonts and so forth) it needs access to the raw frames (for layout and compositing into the page of the content). The CDM cannot give any random program access to decrypt any given stream, as that would allow anybody to save the content to disk in plain, which is exactly what DRM is intended to prevent. As a result, non proprietary software cannot make use of a "standardized" DRM infrastructure, since modifyable software cannot be trusted to use the API in a fashion that the authors of the DRM want them to use it. This means that Open Source browsers (such as Firefox, Chromium, Webkit, Khtml etc.) are relegated to second-class citizens who cannot serve the web that the W3C envisions. At first this is an unfair handycap, but then this becomes a threat to the Open Web, as the proliferation of DRM across large web properties will make those properties unusuable to Open Source browsers. Eventually you end up again with a browser monopoly (like IE6) that stiffled all progress on the web for more than 6 years.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jiggy2011 13y agoThe CDM can render frames itself if required. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/stack_overview.png https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
- hdevalence 13y agomhm, so in that diagram what happens when both "Platform" and "Browser" are user-modifiable?
- jiggy2011 13y agoI'm not sure your point?
- conductor 13y agoIf the user controls the OS (e.g. by a kernel module) or the Browser (e.g. via a plug-in) then he can capture the audio/video streams.
- jiggy2011 13y agoThe user always controls the OS, this is already the case of most platforms. This isn't really the point of DRM.
- pyalot2 13y agoThat is exactly the point of DRM. See for instance the difficulties that linux has supporting DVD playback (and now blu-ray playback). Open Source OSes will be excluded from EME.