4 ms·

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).
    - Already__Taken 13y ago
      Do you want to buy and run windows 9? Because to see the new series of the game of thrones only windows 9's CDMs can read it. That is the kind web you are negotiating for. How long do you think MS would back port these things to win7 before they bump their minimumContentPlayer=win8 and then that's it you're not seeing any of that media to you pay up. Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy. And only supported on 32 bit intel machines!
      - eponeponepon 13y ago
        >Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs Even that's a bit hopeful imho - consider how easy it is to imagine an advert declaring "Game of Thrones Season 5: Exclusive to Apple!"... Hell, it could be worse - "Only on Intel"?
      - shawnz 13y ago
        > That is the kind web you are negotiating for. As discussed, that is a motivation that will exist regardless of the W3C's course of action. What I am negotiating for is the W3C being in charge of what access these "big bad companies" have over web standards, rather than allowing the development of similar technologies to continue unmoderated.
        duncan_bayne 13y ago
        The fact that EME is being seriously entertained by the W3C should tell you everything you need to know about the power relationships there. I don't think there's as much 'being in charge' as you think there might be.
- ericd 13y ago
  Wouldn't another option simply be making it so that Netflix et al are in a position that they can't move forward to these new standards with their licensed stuff, but everyone else can? Them being the only ones left using Flash/Silverlight would probably give them a good incentive to push back on their contracts...

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).
  - Already__Taken 13y ago
    Do you want to buy and run windows 9? Because to see the new series of the game of thrones only windows 9's CDMs can read it. That is the kind web you are negotiating for. How long do you think MS would back port these things to win7 before they bump their minimumContentPlayer=win8 and then that's it you're not seeing any of that media to you pay up. Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs, it will just be a major version behind, 6 months late and kind of buggy. And only supported on 32 bit intel machines!
    - eponeponepon 13y ago
      >Perhaps they'll choose to offer a binary for other open source OSs Even that's a bit hopeful imho - consider how easy it is to imagine an advert declaring "Game of Thrones Season 5: Exclusive to Apple!"... Hell, it could be worse - "Only on Intel"?
    - shawnz 13y ago
      > That is the kind web you are negotiating for. As discussed, that is a motivation that will exist regardless of the W3C's course of action. What I am negotiating for is the W3C being in charge of what access these "big bad companies" have over web standards, rather than allowing the development of similar technologies to continue unmoderated.
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        The fact that EME is being seriously entertained by the W3C should tell you everything you need to know about the power relationships there. I don't think there's as much 'being in charge' as you think there might be.
ericd 13y ago
Wouldn't another option simply be making it so that Netflix et al are in a position that they can't move forward to these new standards with their licensed stuff, but everyone else can? Them being the only ones left using Flash/Silverlight would probably give them a good incentive to push back on their contracts...