3 ms·

> 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 w

> 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. No, that's not the expectation of EME opponents. EME opponents understand that companies will continue to use restricted access, as they always have, but want them to do it off-spec and on their own dime. > 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. That would be far less of a setback for the open web than the current state, which bakes the notion of restricted access into the open standards.

jmillikin 13y ago
"off-spec and on their own dime" could also be written "for only the top 2-3 most popular operating systems". If Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, and CyanogenMod are locked out of watching Netflix but iOS and Windows work fine, then that's a significant reason for users to buy the completely proprietary systems. > That would be far less of a setback for the open web > than the current state, which bakes the notion of > restricted access into the open standards. If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > If Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, and CyanogenMod are locked out of watching Netflix but iOS and Windows work fine The status quo is that Linux users are already locked out of Netflix. The only reason that Cyanogenmod users aren't is because they can run the standard Android apk, which, incidentally, is a separate proprietary blob that Netflix had to write and produce on their own dime. I'd rather vendors be forced to ship proprietary binaries that they have to produce themselves than for them to offload the work onto open-source browsers (or, worse, be able to pressure open-source browsers to cripple their own functionality in order to preserve DRM). > If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized. If widespread restrictions are going to exist, it's better for them to be less convenient for everyone involved (both consumers and distributors), not more.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Actually, the status quo is that Linux users are more locked out of Netflix with HTML5 EME than they are with the existing solutions. Silverlight is a small enough plugin that people have figured out how to run it under Linux using Wine, likewise with the Android .apk and CyanogenMod; but I don't think anyone's even managed to get the EME-based Netflix for Chromebooks to run with developer mode enabled let alone on different hardware, and IE11's EME implementation requires the whole of IE11.
- icebraining 13y ago
  And if the standard is implemented, there's no reason to believe the media companies will implement Content Decryption Modules for Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, etc, so what exactly would we gain?
- pyalot2 13y ago
  > If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized. Those widespread restrictions imply that only proprietary browsers and operating systems can use EME. However "standardizing" the interface gives those proprietary companies the opportunity to claim that their solution is "standards compliant", while in reality the standard is a farce and their solutions are nothing of the kind.

jmillikin 13y ago

"off-spec and on their own dime" could also be written "for only the top 2-3 most popular operating systems". If Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, and CyanogenMod are locked out of watching Netflix but iOS and Windows work fine, then that's a significant reason for users to buy the completely proprietary systems. > That would be far less of a setback for the open web > than the current state, which bakes the notion of > restricted access into the open standards. If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> If Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, and CyanogenMod are locked out of watching Netflix but iOS and Windows work fine The status quo is that Linux users are already locked out of Netflix. The only reason that Cyanogenmod users aren't is because they can run the standard Android apk, which, incidentally, is a separate proprietary blob that Netflix had to write and produce on their own dime. I'd rather vendors be forced to ship proprietary binaries that they have to produce themselves than for them to offload the work onto open-source browsers (or, worse, be able to pressure open-source browsers to cripple their own functionality in order to preserve DRM). > If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized. If widespread restrictions are going to exist, it's better for them to be less convenient for everyone involved (both consumers and distributors), not more.
- makomk 13y ago
  Actually, the status quo is that Linux users are more locked out of Netflix with HTML5 EME than they are with the existing solutions. Silverlight is a small enough plugin that people have figured out how to run it under Linux using Wine, likewise with the Android .apk and CyanogenMod; but I don't think anyone's even managed to get the EME-based Netflix for Chromebooks to run with developer mode enabled let alone on different hardware, and IE11's EME implementation requires the whole of IE11.
icebraining 13y ago
And if the standard is implemented, there's no reason to believe the media companies will implement Content Decryption Modules for Ubuntu, FirefoxOS, etc, so what exactly would we gain?
pyalot2 13y ago
> If widespread restrictions are going to exist anyway, then it's strictly better for the interface to be standardized. Those widespread restrictions imply that only proprietary browsers and operating systems can use EME. However "standardizing" the interface gives those proprietary companies the opportunity to claim that their solution is "standards compliant", while in reality the standard is a farce and their solutions are nothing of the kind.