4 ms·

I don't understand why they are pushing drm when they could implement a webbytecode (ie. the v8 ast as a loadable blob) and just do the drm on their own dime.

pyalot2 13y ago
Because running it this way, Google, Microsoft and Apple can't exclude browser competition. With EME they can.
- azakai 13y ago
  AFAIK, Apple is not participating in EME - has that changed?
  - pyalot2 13y ago
    Apple is, and has been participating in EME. Apple employees are active on the W3C EME-WG ML and they are regularly scheduled to attendance of Telephoneconferences by Microsoft, to which they appear and comment. Microsoft has become the main lobbying party in pushing EME forward, with google mostly taking a passive role. There is no standard that W3C or WhatWG develop that was pursued as aggressively by Microsoft as EME. The last time similar levels of "standards activism" by Microsoft are documented is when they corrupted an international standardization process to push the Open XML document standard trough. I would be very worried if the EFF, Cory Doctorow, RMS, FSF, CCC, defective by design, WhatWG and a long list of other organizations agree against a standard, but Microsoft, Apple, Google and Netflix are closely cooperating to make it happen.
    - gsnedders 13y ago
      The (eventual) AC vote on progression is a simple majority vote — where there is one vote per AC representative (and one AC rep per Member). (The vote technically only happens if an appeal is launched with 5% of the AC in support, which requires one or more Formal Objections — but will almost certainly happen in this case.) The EFF is the only person/org in that list of people who are Members. The rest — effectively — have no say. The Director practically cannot go against the majority of the AC (as they can just amend the Process to remove the Director's veto). You'll need to convince a lot more Members to vote against it. I see no evidence of MS having done anything underhand here — this is simply a case of a lot (quite possibly a majority) of Members wanting something a lot of people disagree with.
    - azakai 13y ago
      Thanks for the info! Are there any public links I could read more about this on? (specifically Apple's involvement and commitment)
jmillikin 13y ago
1. The only way to have even somewhat secure Digital Restrictions Management is to have some proprietary binary on the local machine which can authenticate itself to the display device. This requires a level of access permission which you do not want to provide to the web in general. 2. If the DRM blob were delivered via the web, then it would be trivially easy to connect through a proxy that delivered its own ineffective DRM blob. Content companies would not accept this solution. 3. The goal of EME is not to increase the number of people who can access restricted content, it's to provide a replacement for the rapidly collapsing Flash Player pseudo-standard. The various content companies require their distributors to use something at least as good as Flash, but YouTube et al know that Flash probably won't exist in a few years, so the race is on to see which replacement will dominate the market. --- The basic position of EME opponents appears to be that if we refuse to allow DRM modules in browsers, then the companies pushing DRM will give up and let us watch unrestricted video. This position, in my opinion, is fantastically optimistic. If EME is blocked, then these companies will either start distributing their own customized locked-down applications ("You must install the Netflix Player to watch this movie"), or will work privately with the major proprietary browser platforms (IE, Safari, Android Chrome, ChromeOS) to implement what they demand. Firefox and Chrom{e,ium} will be left out in the cold, and the advancement of the open web will se a significant setback.
- shmerl 13y ago
  How will the open Web advance if EME is added to the standard? Using HTML with DRM modules in a "standard" way doesn't make the Web any more open, than when that DRM is outside outside the browser altogether. I.e. while content companies are crazy bent on DRM, let them use their custom applications all they want. What's the problem with that? In time they might gain sanity and drop this useless junk. But their mind sickness is not a reason to pollute the standard with it as well.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    HTML+DRM is closer to an open web than a locally installed proprietary application + DRM.

pyalot2 13y ago

Because running it this way, Google, Microsoft and Apple can't exclude browser competition. With EME they can.

azakai 13y ago
AFAIK, Apple is not participating in EME - has that changed?
- pyalot2 13y ago
  Apple is, and has been participating in EME. Apple employees are active on the W3C EME-WG ML and they are regularly scheduled to attendance of Telephoneconferences by Microsoft, to which they appear and comment. Microsoft has become the main lobbying party in pushing EME forward, with google mostly taking a passive role. There is no standard that W3C or WhatWG develop that was pursued as aggressively by Microsoft as EME. The last time similar levels of "standards activism" by Microsoft are documented is when they corrupted an international standardization process to push the Open XML document standard trough. I would be very worried if the EFF, Cory Doctorow, RMS, FSF, CCC, defective by design, WhatWG and a long list of other organizations agree against a standard, but Microsoft, Apple, Google and Netflix are closely cooperating to make it happen.
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    The (eventual) AC vote on progression is a simple majority vote — where there is one vote per AC representative (and one AC rep per Member). (The vote technically only happens if an appeal is launched with 5% of the AC in support, which requires one or more Formal Objections — but will almost certainly happen in this case.) The EFF is the only person/org in that list of people who are Members. The rest — effectively — have no say. The Director practically cannot go against the majority of the AC (as they can just amend the Process to remove the Director's veto). You'll need to convince a lot more Members to vote against it. I see no evidence of MS having done anything underhand here — this is simply a case of a lot (quite possibly a majority) of Members wanting something a lot of people disagree with.
  - azakai 13y ago
    Thanks for the info! Are there any public links I could read more about this on? (specifically Apple's involvement and commitment)

jmillikin 13y ago

1. The only way to have even somewhat secure Digital Restrictions Management is to have some proprietary binary on the local machine which can authenticate itself to the display device. This requires a level of access permission which you do not want to provide to the web in general. 2. If the DRM blob were delivered via the web, then it would be trivially easy to connect through a proxy that delivered its own ineffective DRM blob. Content companies would not accept this solution. 3. The goal of EME is not to increase the number of people who can access restricted content, it's to provide a replacement for the rapidly collapsing Flash Player pseudo-standard. The various content companies require their distributors to use something at least as good as Flash, but YouTube et al know that Flash probably won't exist in a few years, so the race is on to see which replacement will dominate the market. --- The basic position of EME opponents appears to be that if we refuse to allow DRM modules in browsers, then the companies pushing DRM will give up and let us watch unrestricted video. This position, in my opinion, is fantastically optimistic. If EME is blocked, then these companies will either start distributing their own customized locked-down applications ("You must install the Netflix Player to watch this movie"), or will work privately with the major proprietary browser platforms (IE, Safari, Android Chrome, ChromeOS) to implement what they demand. Firefox and Chrom{e,ium} will be left out in the cold, and the advancement of the open web will se a significant setback.

shmerl 13y ago
How will the open Web advance if EME is added to the standard? Using HTML with DRM modules in a "standard" way doesn't make the Web any more open, than when that DRM is outside outside the browser altogether. I.e. while content companies are crazy bent on DRM, let them use their custom applications all they want. What's the problem with that? In time they might gain sanity and drop this useless junk. But their mind sickness is not a reason to pollute the standard with it as well.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  HTML+DRM is closer to an open web than a locally installed proprietary application + DRM.