5 ms·

EME has a proprietary part, the CDM (content decryption module). In order for the browser (its compositor etc.) to work, the browser needs access to the plain

by pyalot2 13y ago

EME has a proprietary part, the CDM (content decryption module). In order for the browser (its compositor etc.) to work, the browser needs access to the plain (unencrypted) content, to do things like layering (alpha blending) elements on top of each other, CSS transformations, CSS shading and putting things into WebGL. If the CDM would give the browser access to the plain content, then the browser (or any program) could just dump the plain content to disk, exactly what EME/CDM is designed to prevent. In that scenario only proprietary browsers would be able to implement EME. In above scenario, if EME was adopted across major web properties (like netflix, amazon, youtube, vimeo, dailymotion, bbc, facebook etc.) then it would mean that Open Source/community browsers would be regarded as "the browsers that don't work" and would loose substantial market share and couldn't gain traction. This would be very bad for the Web as it would revert the Web back to a browser monoculture (of the kind we already had with IE6). Innovation would stall. I suspect that the existing EME/CDM implementation in IE11 and Chromebooks is based on the CDM sharing plain content with the browser (for reasons I'll get to below). If the CDM does not share the plain content with the browser, and the browser just gets to instruct the CDM to "draw there", then that means that: You cannot layer stuff on top of the content (customized playback controls, user annotations, closed captions, advertising, other informational/navigational elements, branding etc.). You couldn't CSS transform the container with the content. You couldn't CSS shade/filter the content. You couldn't control its CSS opacity and you can't put the content into WebGL. You couldn't easily implement tab-switching (or alternative schemes of tabbing). This would be a serious drawback for EME, and it would make it practically unusable on most web properties that might want to use it (every web property adds its own social features, playback, branding and advertising to the content it serves up). That means that the only two choices to make EME work are either seriously crippling the Web altogether by remaking it into a proprietary monoculture, or crippling EME so much that nobody would want to use it. It's a very bad standard.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Most people who put content on the web want it to be shared and viewed by as many people as possible, so it is not in their interest to use DRM and most do not use it now. The only exception seems to be holywood style content which must be distributed by DRM by edict of the media companies. Whether or not this standard goes through doesn't change either of these incentives.
AndrewDucker 13y ago
Yup, according to the standard the procedure is: Let encrypted be false. Detect whether the frame is encrypted. If the frame is encrypted Run the steps above. Otherwise Continue. Decode the frame. Provide the frame for rendering. (From 4.2 of https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#waiting-for-a-key https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... ) Which indicates that the frame is still going through the current playback method, and thus the results would be instantly dumpable if you had source access.
acdha 13y ago
> If the CDM does not share the plain content with the browser, and the browser just gets to instruct the CDM to "draw there", then that means that: You cannot layer stuff on top of the content (customized playback controls, user annotations, closed captions, advertising, other informational/navigational elements, branding etc.). You couldn't CSS transform the container with the content. You couldn't CSS shade/filter the content. You couldn't control its CSS opacity and you can't put the content into WebGL. You couldn't easily implement tab-switching (or alternative schemes of tabbing). Almost none of this is true if the operating system allows you to provide a write-only layer – you'd be limited to the operations which the GPU can perform without the browser seeing the bits but that would address the needs of most sites at or better than the current plugin situation. That said, millions of people seem to be perfectly happy with all of those restrictions as evidenced by the continued use of plugins which provide DRM with exactly the same tradeoffs — currently you could save frames from Flash/Silverlight but the content providers seem to have accepted that risk and nobody bothers because there are easier options available. The real question here isn't an endless rehash of the DRM debates but how to change public opinion. We have a preponderance of evidence that most computer users are happy to accept DRM if that's how they get convenient access to things they want to see. The W3C is reacting to the strong, growing trend away from web technologies so it's a bit pointless to criticize that unless you have a viable plan to either get content providers to adopt less invasive but equally effective technologies like watermarking or get the public to stop paying for them. Say we do draw a line and convince the W3C to drop EME — who benefits other than Adobe and Microsoft? Apple doesn't need EME because they're selling billions of dollars of movies through the iTunes store. Google will put EME or the equivalent into Chrome for anything they can't sell through their store. This places Firefox in a really unpleasant situation: Mozilla will either be forced to license something, hope something changes before the plugin vendors drop out, or lose market-share because users are more likely to switch to IE / Safari / Chrome if something doesn't work in Firefox rather than not pay for DRMed content.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  > Almost none of this is true if the operating system allows you to provide a write-only layer – you'd be limited to the operations which the GPU can perform without the browser seeing the bits but that would address the needs of most sites at or better than the current plugin situation. The EME language indicates that the aim is to provide raw frames to the browser. Regardless, Adobe (with flash) has moved on from the idea to draw everything on top and not interact with the browsers compositor a long time ago. It turned out to be just extremely unworkable for a lot of flash usecases. These days, flash provides a filled framebuffer for the browser, and the browser composits it with the page in software or hardware. The step back to the model that the proprietary blob draws directly on screen will turn out to be non usable for most web properties (like netflix, youtube, amazon, bbc, vimeo etc.) because they all place custom branding, advertising, user annotations, closed captions, player controls and other navigational/informational elements on top of the content. > Say we do draw a line and convince the W3C to drop EME — who benefits other than Adobe and Microsoft? Apple doesn't need EME because they're selling billions of dollars of movies through the iTunes store. Google will put EME or the equivalent into Chrome for anything they can't sell through their store. Microsoft has been one of the staunchest and most feeverish proponents of DRM. Initially launched by Google and Netflix, to a mounting opposition from the EFF, Cory Doctorow, me and many, many other people, Microsoft stepped in and agressively stiffled dissent in the discussion on the standards body and held almost daily telephone conferences with netflix to push EME trough as fast as possible. The reason Microsoft is all hot&bothered about EME is because for the first time, in a long time, they see a credible chance to lock the web back into only their own platform (and certain tollerated proprietary small-bit players). The question isn't who is going to benefit if you oppose EME. The question is who is going to benefit even more if you don't oppose it (which is Microsoft). So the argument "Oh Apple and Microsoft are just gonna profit off EME" is moot, they're gonna pull their vendor-lock in and non-standard web fraud anyway, but now they get to say "waaaat? we're not evil! see, it's a standard!!!" > This places Firefox in a really unpleasant situation: Mozilla will either be forced to license something, hope something changes before the plugin vendors drop out, or lose market-share because users are more likely to switch to IE / Safari / Chrome if something doesn't work in Firefox rather than not pay for DRMed content. As I've said before, Firefox is in more than an unpleasant situation, because either EME is totally crippled and unusable for everybody, or the CDM will only be available to proprietary browsers. Either way, Mozilla/Firefox loses. But allowing EME/CDM/DRM is the worse choice, because it attaches all the legal headaches of DRM with a standard bodies blessing.

by pyalot2 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

Most people who put content on the web want it to be shared and viewed by as many people as possible, so it is not in their interest to use DRM and most do not use it now. The only exception seems to be holywood style content which must be distributed by DRM by edict of the media companies. Whether or not this standard goes through doesn't change either of these incentives.

AndrewDucker 13y ago

Yup, according to the standard the procedure is: Let encrypted be false. Detect whether the frame is encrypted. If the frame is encrypted Run the steps above. Otherwise Continue. Decode the frame. Provide the frame for rendering. (From 4.2 of https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#waiting-for-a-key https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... ) Which indicates that the frame is still going through the current playback method, and thus the results would be instantly dumpable if you had source access.

acdha 13y ago

> If the CDM does not share the plain content with the browser, and the browser just gets to instruct the CDM to "draw there", then that means that: You cannot layer stuff on top of the content (customized playback controls, user annotations, closed captions, advertising, other informational/navigational elements, branding etc.). You couldn't CSS transform the container with the content. You couldn't CSS shade/filter the content. You couldn't control its CSS opacity and you can't put the content into WebGL. You couldn't easily implement tab-switching (or alternative schemes of tabbing). Almost none of this is true if the operating system allows you to provide a write-only layer – you'd be limited to the operations which the GPU can perform without the browser seeing the bits but that would address the needs of most sites at or better than the current plugin situation. That said, millions of people seem to be perfectly happy with all of those restrictions as evidenced by the continued use of plugins which provide DRM with exactly the same tradeoffs — currently you could save frames from Flash/Silverlight but the content providers seem to have accepted that risk and nobody bothers because there are easier options available. The real question here isn't an endless rehash of the DRM debates but how to change public opinion. We have a preponderance of evidence that most computer users are happy to accept DRM if that's how they get convenient access to things they want to see. The W3C is reacting to the strong, growing trend away from web technologies so it's a bit pointless to criticize that unless you have a viable plan to either get content providers to adopt less invasive but equally effective technologies like watermarking or get the public to stop paying for them. Say we do draw a line and convince the W3C to drop EME — who benefits other than Adobe and Microsoft? Apple doesn't need EME because they're selling billions of dollars of movies through the iTunes store. Google will put EME or the equivalent into Chrome for anything they can't sell through their store. This places Firefox in a really unpleasant situation: Mozilla will either be forced to license something, hope something changes before the plugin vendors drop out, or lose market-share because users are more likely to switch to IE / Safari / Chrome if something doesn't work in Firefox rather than not pay for DRMed content.

pyalot2 13y ago
> Almost none of this is true if the operating system allows you to provide a write-only layer – you'd be limited to the operations which the GPU can perform without the browser seeing the bits but that would address the needs of most sites at or better than the current plugin situation. The EME language indicates that the aim is to provide raw frames to the browser. Regardless, Adobe (with flash) has moved on from the idea to draw everything on top and not interact with the browsers compositor a long time ago. It turned out to be just extremely unworkable for a lot of flash usecases. These days, flash provides a filled framebuffer for the browser, and the browser composits it with the page in software or hardware. The step back to the model that the proprietary blob draws directly on screen will turn out to be non usable for most web properties (like netflix, youtube, amazon, bbc, vimeo etc.) because they all place custom branding, advertising, user annotations, closed captions, player controls and other navigational/informational elements on top of the content. > Say we do draw a line and convince the W3C to drop EME — who benefits other than Adobe and Microsoft? Apple doesn't need EME because they're selling billions of dollars of movies through the iTunes store. Google will put EME or the equivalent into Chrome for anything they can't sell through their store. Microsoft has been one of the staunchest and most feeverish proponents of DRM. Initially launched by Google and Netflix, to a mounting opposition from the EFF, Cory Doctorow, me and many, many other people, Microsoft stepped in and agressively stiffled dissent in the discussion on the standards body and held almost daily telephone conferences with netflix to push EME trough as fast as possible. The reason Microsoft is all hot&bothered about EME is because for the first time, in a long time, they see a credible chance to lock the web back into only their own platform (and certain tollerated proprietary small-bit players). The question isn't who is going to benefit if you oppose EME. The question is who is going to benefit even more if you don't oppose it (which is Microsoft). So the argument "Oh Apple and Microsoft are just gonna profit off EME" is moot, they're gonna pull their vendor-lock in and non-standard web fraud anyway, but now they get to say "waaaat? we're not evil! see, it's a standard!!!" > This places Firefox in a really unpleasant situation: Mozilla will either be forced to license something, hope something changes before the plugin vendors drop out, or lose market-share because users are more likely to switch to IE / Safari / Chrome if something doesn't work in Firefox rather than not pay for DRMed content. As I've said before, Firefox is in more than an unpleasant situation, because either EME is totally crippled and unusable for everybody, or the CDM will only be available to proprietary browsers. Either way, Mozilla/Firefox loses. But allowing EME/CDM/DRM is the worse choice, because it attaches all the legal headaches of DRM with a standard bodies blessing.