4 ms·

EME will work on Linux. The thing is, the CDMs with which it is designed to interface won't. It is technically possible to produce a purely FOSS CDM that will

EME will work on Linux. The thing is, the CDMs with which it is designed to interface won't. It is technically possible to produce a purely FOSS CDM that will compile on pretty much any platform. However that idea has been rejected by content licensees on the grounds that it won't meet requirements, as defined by licence agreements that (so far) no-one is authorised to post on the W3C discussion list. Other ideas that have been rejected are server-side watermarking (too expensive, doesn't meet requirements) and client side watermarking (doesn't meet requirements). So, myself and (most) others are rejecting EME on the grounds that it is inseparable from "non-user-modifiable client components" (a wonderful phrase I picked up on the list), a.k.a. closed-source, proprietary CDMs that are tied to particular OSs.

zanny 13y ago
I find it somewhat awesome that this whole html drm debacle is effectively what Richard Stallman has been saying for decades versus outdated entrenched old media interests. Except in this case, the web standards consortium is giving away your freedom for you. That is what pisses me off most, really - if big media was left to squalor in broken plugins and horrible drm, which should be horrible because its entirely anti-user, they would have to eventually adapt to the Internet and change their ways or die. But with the power of money and apathy on the part of vast swathes of the tech community that think they don't have ground to stand on (hint: you are the consumers they want buying stuff, you hold all the cards) they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Yes it sucks, but it's not too late. The issue of patents in W3C standards came up a decade ago; it looked like the W3C had caved then, but a 'firestorm of public criticism' (to quote an article at the time) caused them to back down. So, agitate. Tell people about it. Bring it up at user groups. Post to Hacker News :) If you know anyone in tech. journalism, tell them. Support the EFF.
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    Also remember it isn't the W3C as an entity that is really the problem — it's convincing a majority of member organizations of the W3C that is the problem. The W3C is just an industrial consortium, and will do what the industry wants. If that's DRM, that's DRM. What happened with patents and what needs to happen now is to convince the majority of members who have no entrenched opinion that they should be against this work happening at the W3C (which by no means guarantees the work will stop — it may well just move to another venue, quite possibly closed, and still de-facto become part of the Web Platform), and that they should oppose this at the AC level, who ultimately control the direction of the W3C. (The AC, essentially, has one representative from each and every member organization.)
- shawnz 13y ago
  > they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks. I don't know what web you have been browsing, but as far as I can see, HTML5 is just now starting to replace flash for online video and audio. I am much sooner ready to support EME over flash, if it helps that transition, despite the ridiculous ineffectiveness and inconvenience of DRM.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Why do you suppose that EME + CDMs will be a better solution than Flash? What advantages do you expect?
    - shawnz 13y ago
      I see EME as a way of reducing the area which DRM can affect. It is a sanely designed box around an insane (but persistent) concept. Whereas flash applies usage restrictions to the whole environment, EME is strictly for streaming video and audio, and encourages the rest of the system to be developed with open technologies (HTML5 and JS). It is the minimum evil necessary to meet the requirements of the existing contractual obligations that cause DRM to exist.
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        Why do you assume that EME is strictly for streaming video and audio? Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types. Also, you're assuming that it is necessary. We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret. Finally, there's no reason that, in order for work on EME to proceed, the W3C has to compromise itself or the Open Web. It'll happen regardless of the W3C.
        shawnz 13y ago
        > Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types. Sorry, I guess "strictly" was the wrong word. Rather, it is designed particularly for the streaming video use case. > We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret. True. But I think a pretty good idea can be had just by looking at the current state of the industry. > It'll happen regardless of the W3C. Exactly. Having the W3C head the initiative is the best thing that could happen to it, short of it not existing (which as you say is impossible). Not compromising on ideals is nice, but not when it stands in the way of what is best for the user (or in this case, least bad).
higherpurpose 13y ago
So the system the way they intend it won't work, which means you won't get the content anyway. Let's not get lost in semantics here.

zanny 13y ago

I find it somewhat awesome that this whole html drm debacle is effectively what Richard Stallman has been saying for decades versus outdated entrenched old media interests. Except in this case, the web standards consortium is giving away your freedom for you. That is what pisses me off most, really - if big media was left to squalor in broken plugins and horrible drm, which should be horrible because its entirely anti-user, they would have to eventually adapt to the Internet and change their ways or die. But with the power of money and apathy on the part of vast swathes of the tech community that think they don't have ground to stand on (hint: you are the consumers they want buying stuff, you hold all the cards) they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
Yes it sucks, but it's not too late. The issue of patents in W3C standards came up a decade ago; it looked like the W3C had caved then, but a 'firestorm of public criticism' (to quote an article at the time) caused them to back down. So, agitate. Tell people about it. Bring it up at user groups. Post to Hacker News :) If you know anyone in tech. journalism, tell them. Support the EFF.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  Also remember it isn't the W3C as an entity that is really the problem — it's convincing a majority of member organizations of the W3C that is the problem. The W3C is just an industrial consortium, and will do what the industry wants. If that's DRM, that's DRM. What happened with patents and what needs to happen now is to convince the majority of members who have no entrenched opinion that they should be against this work happening at the W3C (which by no means guarantees the work will stop — it may well just move to another venue, quite possibly closed, and still de-facto become part of the Web Platform), and that they should oppose this at the AC level, who ultimately control the direction of the W3C. (The AC, essentially, has one representative from each and every member organization.)
shawnz 13y ago
> they are ending the open inter-operable web. It sucks. I don't know what web you have been browsing, but as far as I can see, HTML5 is just now starting to replace flash for online video and audio. I am much sooner ready to support EME over flash, if it helps that transition, despite the ridiculous ineffectiveness and inconvenience of DRM.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Why do you suppose that EME + CDMs will be a better solution than Flash? What advantages do you expect?
  - shawnz 13y ago
    I see EME as a way of reducing the area which DRM can affect. It is a sanely designed box around an insane (but persistent) concept. Whereas flash applies usage restrictions to the whole environment, EME is strictly for streaming video and audio, and encourages the rest of the system to be developed with open technologies (HTML5 and JS). It is the minimum evil necessary to meet the requirements of the existing contractual obligations that cause DRM to exist.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      Why do you assume that EME is strictly for streaming video and audio? Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types. Also, you're assuming that it is necessary. We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret. Finally, there's no reason that, in order for work on EME to proceed, the W3C has to compromise itself or the Open Web. It'll happen regardless of the W3C.
      - shawnz 13y ago
        > Others have documented an interest in extending it to other media types. Sorry, I guess "strictly" was the wrong word. Rather, it is designed particularly for the streaming video use case. > We don't know, as long as the requirements are secret. True. But I think a pretty good idea can be had just by looking at the current state of the industry. > It'll happen regardless of the W3C. Exactly. Having the W3C head the initiative is the best thing that could happen to it, short of it not existing (which as you say is impossible). Not compromising on ideals is nice, but not when it stands in the way of what is best for the user (or in this case, least bad).

higherpurpose 13y ago

So the system the way they intend it won't work, which means you won't get the content anyway. Let's not get lost in semantics here.