6 ms·

The media companies would have no issues whatsoever with continuing to use outdated, insecure and otherwise broken technologies to ensure that their content is

The media companies would have no issues whatsoever with continuing to use outdated, insecure and otherwise broken technologies to ensure that their content is delivered with some form of DRM. Those technologies already exist, and already ensure the media companies have a future of distribution over the web. Creating some form of standard around the use of DRM is the lesser of two evils when compared to the use of a multitude of proprietary decoders.

blueskin_ 12y ago
Sadly, I think you're right. Silverlight is effectively dead now, but still in use for a lot of streaming video. Netflix et al will probably only ditch it when it can't even be installed on many computers any more, and will probably go for some other third party framework when they do.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> Creating some form of standard around the use of DRM is the lesser of two evils when compared to the use of a multitude of proprietary decoders. I have nothing against the media and proprietary software companies getting together to make a DRM standard. It would have precisely zero impact on my life, since I already avoid all forms of DRM. I don't see what that has to do with Web standards though, since their goals are completely incompatible. EME shouldn't exist.
- ermintrude 12y ago
  For now. If this spreads to being able to DRM images and text, or they use it on YouTube/whatever other video site, you will be affected. That's the real danger to my eyes.
jeswin 12y ago
Open standards (and free software as well) do not directly fight closed distributors (both media and software) or ask them to change their ways. But what they do is give a more open upstart a significant advantage; an advantage that helps them offset some of the other shortcomings they have. So if my company had average content that could reach 2 billion people against Mediaflix's 50m with closed silverlight, I'd still survive. Once I start making better content, Mediaflix is forced to do something or they'll slowly die.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  So if my company had average content that could reach 2 billion people against Mediaflix's 50m with closed silverlight, I'd still survive. Your company is called YouTube, and it's doing just fine.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    Where are the latest Hollyood hotness on YouTube? I only found teasers, third party fair use, and deleted videos and accounts.
    - twoodfin 12y ago
      Hence "average content". The studios are the reason Netflix has to serve their content with DRM, and they're fairly unanimous about it.
aragot 12y ago
We're rather talking about Youtube going under DRM than Netflix. Youtube without DRM was an advantage for a couple of hackers: They could download vids for offline viewing (iPod/iPad and p2p-sharing after takedown). Youtube with DRM could change the game. The impact of a movie being pirated on Youtube is much more contained if users can't download it.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Adding DRM to youtube simply doesn't make sense to me. The majority of content is added to youtube because the publisher wants people to view it and share it as much as possible. They aren't monetising the content directly. It's really only big media companies that are in the weird position of wanting many people to view their content but only under specific constraints.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Some videos on Youtube are already using DRM, in the form of RTMPE.
- icebraining 12y ago
  But they will. If the video player can decrypt the content, so can any youtube downloader transparently for the user.
higherpurpose 12y ago
There is no "standard" around DRM. Google, Microsoft and Apple each will have their own different DRM platform. If you're outside of those 3 platforms, tough luck. Their only hope is to have a popular enough 3rd party DRM platform, like from Adobe, to be able to play those videos if their OS isn't from Google, Microsoft or Apple. How will Jolla Sailfish play these DRM'ed videos? They cannot. Unless they implement the Adobe DRM, too, which can only be implemented as a plugin, into these non-Google/Apple/MS solutions. So now instead of just Adobe's flash , and a Silverlight that was dying anyway since Microsoft deprecated it, we'll have at least four different DRM platforms. Yay for the "HTML5 DRM"!
the_ancient 12y ago
I find this funny... Today there are 2 decoders, Flash and Silverlight with EME we are moving to a minimum of 4, and possibly a crap load more decoders... Adobe DRM, MS PlayReady, Apple FairPlay and Google Widevine. How is that better? Ohh and calling them extensions does not magically make them better than plugins.. they are still binary blobs running closed source code interfacing with the browser using an api. a plugin by another name is still a plugin
- camus2 12y ago
  sh... brainless devs just want to bash flash... that's why.Most of them didnt live the time when you had to install 60 plugins to read videos.
- geitiegg 12y ago
  Today, there are two main browser plugins required for watching DRM Video on the web. These plugins are not decoders, they are merely platforms on which the decoders themselves can run, alongside any other code that the site may supply. The problem with this approach, as I see it, is that these platforms create an inherent security risk for the user alongside the current issues regarding free software and ethics. The use of Flash/Silverlight also slows the adoption of other, more open, web standards. By switching to EME, you're switching out the Flash & Silverlight platforms for a set of closed binary blobs which take an encrypted stream from the browser and produce unencrypted video/audio for the browser to display instead of executing arbitrary code. Now, I'll admit I'm not terribly well versed on the issue, but to me that seems to increase user security, promotes the use of other open web standards over Flash/Silverlight and keeps the media companies happy. The only people losing out in this situation are those that find DRM conceptually abhorrent.
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    Functionally, as far as displaying video goes, there is very little difference between a Flash Video player, and a Adobe CDM Video Player. Sure it might have a slightly smaller attack surface because it does not have all the other flash "features" that are not really used any more, but do not fool yourself, it is still executing arbitrary code that is beyond your control, and any attempt to control what this code does could be considered a violation of DMCA. It however in no way promotes the open web, I do not know where you get that from. This is the exact opposite of promoting the open web As to who loses out, it is not just people that find DRM objectionable. Will Adobe DRM work on ARM for the various SBC system like the Raspberry pi? Doubtful.. Will there be a CMD for midori? Ice Weasel? or any of the other less popular browsers? Doubtful. With the Adobe CDM work well, and bug free with out killing system resources under Linux x86? Doubtful (it will probably work, just not well) So we are back to a world where only "approved" platforms are allowed to use the web fully, this is direct opposition to W3C's stated mission.
guelo 12y ago
The real fight here is about mobile and all the other platforms like Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku, Sony, wearables, cars, etc. Netflix and co. don't want to have to develop for all these platforms, they want to hijack the web to do the cross-platform dirty work for them. Especially since Adobe already gave up on running Flash on all the platforms after Apple blocked them on iOS.

blueskin_ 12y ago

Sadly, I think you're right. Silverlight is effectively dead now, but still in use for a lot of streaming video. Netflix et al will probably only ditch it when it can't even be installed on many computers any more, and will probably go for some other third party framework when they do.

chriswarbo 12y ago

> Creating some form of standard around the use of DRM is the lesser of two evils when compared to the use of a multitude of proprietary decoders. I have nothing against the media and proprietary software companies getting together to make a DRM standard. It would have precisely zero impact on my life, since I already avoid all forms of DRM. I don't see what that has to do with Web standards though, since their goals are completely incompatible. EME shouldn't exist.

ermintrude 12y ago
For now. If this spreads to being able to DRM images and text, or they use it on YouTube/whatever other video site, you will be affected. That's the real danger to my eyes.

jeswin 12y ago

Open standards (and free software as well) do not directly fight closed distributors (both media and software) or ask them to change their ways. But what they do is give a more open upstart a significant advantage; an advantage that helps them offset some of the other shortcomings they have. So if my company had average content that could reach 2 billion people against Mediaflix's 50m with closed silverlight, I'd still survive. Once I start making better content, Mediaflix is forced to do something or they'll slowly die.

twoodfin 12y ago
So if my company had average content that could reach 2 billion people against Mediaflix's 50m with closed silverlight, I'd still survive. Your company is called YouTube, and it's doing just fine.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  Where are the latest Hollyood hotness on YouTube? I only found teasers, third party fair use, and deleted videos and accounts.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    Hence "average content". The studios are the reason Netflix has to serve their content with DRM, and they're fairly unanimous about it.

aragot 12y ago

We're rather talking about Youtube going under DRM than Netflix. Youtube without DRM was an advantage for a couple of hackers: They could download vids for offline viewing (iPod/iPad and p2p-sharing after takedown). Youtube with DRM could change the game. The impact of a movie being pirated on Youtube is much more contained if users can't download it.

jiggy2011 12y ago
Adding DRM to youtube simply doesn't make sense to me. The majority of content is added to youtube because the publisher wants people to view it and share it as much as possible. They aren't monetising the content directly. It's really only big media companies that are in the weird position of wanting many people to view their content but only under specific constraints.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Some videos on Youtube are already using DRM, in the form of RTMPE.
icebraining 12y ago
But they will. If the video player can decrypt the content, so can any youtube downloader transparently for the user.

higherpurpose 12y ago

There is no "standard" around DRM. Google, Microsoft and Apple each will have their own different DRM platform. If you're outside of those 3 platforms, tough luck. Their only hope is to have a popular enough 3rd party DRM platform, like from Adobe, to be able to play those videos if their OS isn't from Google, Microsoft or Apple. How will Jolla Sailfish play these DRM'ed videos? They cannot. Unless they implement the Adobe DRM, too, which can only be implemented as a plugin, into these non-Google/Apple/MS solutions. So now instead of just Adobe's flash , and a Silverlight that was dying anyway since Microsoft deprecated it, we'll have at least four different DRM platforms. Yay for the "HTML5 DRM"!

the_ancient 12y ago

I find this funny... Today there are 2 decoders, Flash and Silverlight with EME we are moving to a minimum of 4, and possibly a crap load more decoders... Adobe DRM, MS PlayReady, Apple FairPlay and Google Widevine. How is that better? Ohh and calling them extensions does not magically make them better than plugins.. they are still binary blobs running closed source code interfacing with the browser using an api. a plugin by another name is still a plugin

camus2 12y ago
sh... brainless devs just want to bash flash... that's why.Most of them didnt live the time when you had to install 60 plugins to read videos.
geitiegg 12y ago
Today, there are two main browser plugins required for watching DRM Video on the web. These plugins are not decoders, they are merely platforms on which the decoders themselves can run, alongside any other code that the site may supply. The problem with this approach, as I see it, is that these platforms create an inherent security risk for the user alongside the current issues regarding free software and ethics. The use of Flash/Silverlight also slows the adoption of other, more open, web standards. By switching to EME, you're switching out the Flash & Silverlight platforms for a set of closed binary blobs which take an encrypted stream from the browser and produce unencrypted video/audio for the browser to display instead of executing arbitrary code. Now, I'll admit I'm not terribly well versed on the issue, but to me that seems to increase user security, promotes the use of other open web standards over Flash/Silverlight and keeps the media companies happy. The only people losing out in this situation are those that find DRM conceptually abhorrent.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  Functionally, as far as displaying video goes, there is very little difference between a Flash Video player, and a Adobe CDM Video Player. Sure it might have a slightly smaller attack surface because it does not have all the other flash "features" that are not really used any more, but do not fool yourself, it is still executing arbitrary code that is beyond your control, and any attempt to control what this code does could be considered a violation of DMCA. It however in no way promotes the open web, I do not know where you get that from. This is the exact opposite of promoting the open web As to who loses out, it is not just people that find DRM objectionable. Will Adobe DRM work on ARM for the various SBC system like the Raspberry pi? Doubtful.. Will there be a CMD for midori? Ice Weasel? or any of the other less popular browsers? Doubtful. With the Adobe CDM work well, and bug free with out killing system resources under Linux x86? Doubtful (it will probably work, just not well) So we are back to a world where only "approved" platforms are allowed to use the web fully, this is direct opposition to W3C's stated mission.

guelo 12y ago

The real fight here is about mobile and all the other platforms like Apple TV, Chromecast, Roku, Sony, wearables, cars, etc. Netflix and co. don't want to have to develop for all these platforms, they want to hijack the web to do the cross-platform dirty work for them. Especially since Adobe already gave up on running Flash on all the platforms after Apple blocked them on iOS.