4 ms·

> If EME is blocked, then these companies will either start distributing their own customized locked-down applications ("You must install the Netflix Player to

by azakai 13y ago

> 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. First thing, Chrome is a proprietary browser platform. Only Chromium should be in the last sentence. I believe Chrome already ships with EME; I am not sure if that includes Google's DRM plugin for it as well, but if not then that is soon to come as well. Chrome already ships with various other proprietary code (Flash, SwiftShader, a PDF reader, etc.) so this would not be a new thing. Google and Microsoft have been developing proprietary DRM plugins, with Netflix and Hollywood, for their browsers. EME is just a generic API to those plugins. So your comparison of what will happen with vs. without EME appears flawed: in both cases, only proprietary browsers that include DRM plugins, which are the result of private collaboration with Netflix and Hollywood, will be able to access content. And yes, that would leave out open source browsers like Firefox and Chromium - with or without EME. I also disagree with the premise underlying > 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. I agree to the conclusion - that it is highly optimistic to see Hollywood quickly move to unrestricted video. But you are assuming there is no other option. There are in fact several: 1. Watermarking as an alternative to DRM, that achieves similar results. 2. Non-proprietary DRM solutions, either standardized (which EME does nothing for, intentionally) or done in web content (HTML5). Those would not be as secure as proprietary binary blobs (what EME assumes), but could still prevent 99% of casual piracy - and professional piracy isn't stopped even by the blobs. 3. Eventual movement to unrestricted video, perhaps after a period of using 1 and/or 2. We saw this in music, it took a while, but sanity prevailed.

jmillikin 13y ago
> First thing, Chrome is a proprietary browser platform. > Only Chromium should be in the last sentence. I believe > Chrome already ships with EME; I am not sure if that > includes Google's DRM plugin for it as well, but if not > then that is soon to come as well. Chrome already ships > with various other proprietary code (Flash, SwiftShader, > a PDF reader, etc.) so this would not be a new thing. I want to distinguish between a browser platform, where the browser is considered an integral part of the underlying OS, and standalone web browsers. Chrome and Firefox are regular applications, they do not (yet?) feature the deep OS integration that would be necessary to implement functional digital restrictions. Google's DRM plugin is currently available for both Firefox and Chrome through the standard Netscape plugin API, but is not bundled with either browser. > in both cases, only proprietary browsers that include > DRM plugins, which are the result of private > collaboration with Netflix and Hollywood, will be able > to access content. And yes, that would leave out open > source browsers like Firefox and Chromium - with or > without EME. If I'm reading the EME spec correctly, then EME plugins can be installable by the end user in the same way that Netscape plugins are today. Assuming the browser chooses to implement the plugin system, both Firefox and Chromium ought to be able to use DRM plugins from the system. > 2. Non-proprietary DRM solutions, either standardized > (which EME does nothing for, intentionally) or done in > web content (HTML5). Those would not be as secure as > proprietary binary blobs (what EME assumes), but could > still prevent 99% of casual piracy - and professional > piracy isn't stopped even by the blobs. Any non-proprietary DRM solution would not be able to stop even casual piracy. The casual pirate will search for [download netflix movie], click the first link, install a browser extension, and get a one-step piracy button right in their browser. That's what content companies are terrified of, and any DRM system that can't stop this sort of pirate will not be accepted. > 3. Eventual movement to unrestricted video, perhaps > after a period of using 1 and/or 2. We saw this in > music, it took a while, but sanity prevailed. We have not seen a victory for free formats in music. The majority of music online is still distributed wrapped in layers of digital restrictions (e.g. Pandora, Spotify) or in patent-encumbered formats (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon).
- makomk 13y ago
  > If I'm reading the EME spec correctly, then EME plugins can be installable by the end user in the same way that Netscape plugins are today. They can be, but neither the browser vendors nor the content providers have to allow them to be, and the EME spec doesn't standardise any equivalent of NPAPI that standardises the interface between them and the browser. Browser vendors can (and it appears will in some cases, e.g. Internet Explorer) only support EME modules supplied by them and compiled into the browser binary; this is anticipated by the spec.

by azakai 13y ago

jmillikin 13y ago

> First thing, Chrome is a proprietary browser platform. > Only Chromium should be in the last sentence. I believe > Chrome already ships with EME; I am not sure if that > includes Google's DRM plugin for it as well, but if not > then that is soon to come as well. Chrome already ships > with various other proprietary code (Flash, SwiftShader, > a PDF reader, etc.) so this would not be a new thing. I want to distinguish between a browser platform, where the browser is considered an integral part of the underlying OS, and standalone web browsers. Chrome and Firefox are regular applications, they do not (yet?) feature the deep OS integration that would be necessary to implement functional digital restrictions. Google's DRM plugin is currently available for both Firefox and Chrome through the standard Netscape plugin API, but is not bundled with either browser. > in both cases, only proprietary browsers that include > DRM plugins, which are the result of private > collaboration with Netflix and Hollywood, will be able > to access content. And yes, that would leave out open > source browsers like Firefox and Chromium - with or > without EME. If I'm reading the EME spec correctly, then EME plugins can be installable by the end user in the same way that Netscape plugins are today. Assuming the browser chooses to implement the plugin system, both Firefox and Chromium ought to be able to use DRM plugins from the system. > 2. Non-proprietary DRM solutions, either standardized > (which EME does nothing for, intentionally) or done in > web content (HTML5). Those would not be as secure as > proprietary binary blobs (what EME assumes), but could > still prevent 99% of casual piracy - and professional > piracy isn't stopped even by the blobs. Any non-proprietary DRM solution would not be able to stop even casual piracy. The casual pirate will search for [download netflix movie], click the first link, install a browser extension, and get a one-step piracy button right in their browser. That's what content companies are terrified of, and any DRM system that can't stop this sort of pirate will not be accepted. > 3. Eventual movement to unrestricted video, perhaps > after a period of using 1 and/or 2. We saw this in > music, it took a while, but sanity prevailed. We have not seen a victory for free formats in music. The majority of music online is still distributed wrapped in layers of digital restrictions (e.g. Pandora, Spotify) or in patent-encumbered formats (e.g. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon).

makomk 13y ago
> If I'm reading the EME spec correctly, then EME plugins can be installable by the end user in the same way that Netscape plugins are today. They can be, but neither the browser vendors nor the content providers have to allow them to be, and the EME spec doesn't standardise any equivalent of NPAPI that standardises the interface between them and the browser. Browser vendors can (and it appears will in some cases, e.g. Internet Explorer) only support EME modules supplied by them and compiled into the browser binary; this is anticipated by the spec.