> 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

> 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).