4 ms·

I know that EME is a sticky wicket for a lot of folks, but what freedom have you lost here? Netflix was already encumbered with DRM requirements from their lic

I know that EME is a sticky wicket for a lot of folks, but what freedom have you lost here? Netflix was already encumbered with DRM requirements from their license terms. They just chose to go with a more standards based and performant solution.

jfb 12y ago
I think you can see the argument that putting this into the standards is a different order of lossage than simply having various implementations.
- morganw 12y ago
  Agreed. Also, EME isn't limited only to traditional Movie & TV uses of video. It could be used for web-like content (rendered and encoded at the server) with un-blockable ads.
esrauch 12y ago
Not all internet users are Netflix subscribers. Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.
- mikeryan 12y ago
  Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. Nonsense. Folks have installed Flash forever in order to watch cat videos. Youtube was Flash based and Flash has even been bundled with Chrome. If folks have wanted to DRM their cat videos they've had the ability and its not happened. Its not client side compatibility thats prevented this its that the DRM encoding and streaming costs and complexity that make this a poor choice for content providers.
  - esrauch 12y ago
    This is a delayed reply, but I really disagree. Flash has (had?) already won. Everyone already has it installed: almost all consumer computers have it installed by default and Chrome runs it without even having the adobe software installed. I think it is an absurd claim mistake that a random website running silverlight would have remotely the same view rate as one using flash. That delta cost more than outweighs the tiny benefit of DRM, and when everything is HTML5 video and DRM comes with actually zero cost to potential users it will be significantly more widespread.
pfranz 12y ago
I don't have an opinion strong enough to do something, but the problem for me is that if it's too easy it'll just get used by default. It's a feature I don't want. I was traveling for work to another country. I went to launch Steam to play a local game and either because the network was misconfigured, Steam didn't like me being in another country, or something else I don't care about, I couldn't launch it to play my downloaded, single-player game. I live in a major US city with Internet from a major cable company. Hulu tells me I'm using a proxy and won't let let use the website anymore. When emailing support they offered no help. Back when iTunes had DRM I was at a wedding at a location without Internet. The bride/groom planned their own music but hadn't authenticated the computer with the playlist for the wedding. These are all companies with more "user-friendly" DRM than most. I like downloading lectures and conference talks. I'm concerned if major video host, like YouTube, were to adopt this I won't be able to download these things and watch while commuting or traveling. It could just as easily happen if Netflix becomes the only host for public domain content or opens to user-submitted video.

jfb 12y ago

I think you can see the argument that putting this into the standards is a different order of lossage than simply having various implementations.

morganw 12y ago
Agreed. Also, EME isn't limited only to traditional Movie & TV uses of video. It could be used for web-like content (rendered and encoded at the server) with un-blockable ads.

esrauch 12y ago

Not all internet users are Netflix subscribers. Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. The net effect of this was that the average video on the internet was not DRM'd, and couldn't be without losing significant potential marketshare. Once all browsers natively support DRM this will likely change.

mikeryan 12y ago
Installing Silverlight is fairly heavyweight, and a lot of people aren't willing to install something like that to watch some random cat video on a random website. Nonsense. Folks have installed Flash forever in order to watch cat videos. Youtube was Flash based and Flash has even been bundled with Chrome. If folks have wanted to DRM their cat videos they've had the ability and its not happened. Its not client side compatibility thats prevented this its that the DRM encoding and streaming costs and complexity that make this a poor choice for content providers.
- esrauch 12y ago
  This is a delayed reply, but I really disagree. Flash has (had?) already won. Everyone already has it installed: almost all consumer computers have it installed by default and Chrome runs it without even having the adobe software installed. I think it is an absurd claim mistake that a random website running silverlight would have remotely the same view rate as one using flash. That delta cost more than outweighs the tiny benefit of DRM, and when everything is HTML5 video and DRM comes with actually zero cost to potential users it will be significantly more widespread.

pfranz 12y ago

I don't have an opinion strong enough to do something, but the problem for me is that if it's too easy it'll just get used by default. It's a feature I don't want. I was traveling for work to another country. I went to launch Steam to play a local game and either because the network was misconfigured, Steam didn't like me being in another country, or something else I don't care about, I couldn't launch it to play my downloaded, single-player game. I live in a major US city with Internet from a major cable company. Hulu tells me I'm using a proxy and won't let let use the website anymore. When emailing support they offered no help. Back when iTunes had DRM I was at a wedding at a location without Internet. The bride/groom planned their own music but hadn't authenticated the computer with the playlist for the wedding. These are all companies with more "user-friendly" DRM than most. I like downloading lectures and conference talks. I'm concerned if major video host, like YouTube, were to adopt this I won't be able to download these things and watch while commuting or traveling. It could just as easily happen if Netflix becomes the only host for public domain content or opens to user-submitted video.