5 ms·

What they mean is that the "Digital Restriction Management in HTML5" proposal is pushed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix into the W3C spec. Apple has simply fo

by fafner 12y ago

What they mean is that the "Digital Restriction Management in HTML5" proposal is pushed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix into the W3C spec. Apple has simply followed the proposal and implemented it as well. AFAIK Chrome, IE, Safari ship with it. Firefox will follow suite by adding a Restriction Module from Adobe (given Adobe's track record it will certainly be an amazingly fast, flexible, beautiful, efficient, and nice way of viewing videos...). So Web-Restrictions is kinda unstoppable now. Instead of having a plugin-free future with HTML5 we have an even worse situation.

Karunamon 12y ago
"No DRM" was never an option. The option was between 1 DRM standard and 50 (so silverlight and widevine and....). The W3C made the most pragmatic choice, here. I think DRM is still crap, but one system is unambiguously better than >1.
- girvo 12y ago
  Except Flash was at least used for stuff other than just DRM, so there was an incentive to get it working across all OSes. Linux is going to struggle once this is adopted, at least open browsers will, and that makes me sad
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    The openness of the browser has nothing to do with it, the browser provides an interface to the DRM mechanism which could be open or closed source. Open source browsers like firefox already support proprietary plugins such as Flash. If anything this makes Linux support easier, because you no longer have to provide support for an entire virtual machine and all APIs such as Flash or Silverlight. The only software required will be the DRM module itself as everything else can be provided by the browser.
    - fafner 12y ago
      The DRM mechanism can't really be open source. You could simply change it to write the unencrypted video data to the disk if it were. A plugin DRM module will also have to do all of the video rendering and displaying. Because if it just hands the unencrypted stream back to the browser then you could change the browser to simply write it to disk. The relevant DRM mechanisms will come from Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Adobe. Both Apple and Microsoft have no interest in supporting GNU/Linux. You won't get their DRM on GNU/Linux no matter how simple it is. Google seems to ship their DRM now on the GNU/Linux version of Chrome. But I don't know if the license allows using it in other browsers. Which would be hindered by the fact that Google uses their own unspecified PAPPI. Adobe wants to provide a DRM module for Firefox EME mechanism. But we all know from enough bad experience how well Adobe does GNU/Linux support. Flash on GNU/Linux was even worse than on any other system until they simply stopped it. They recently even stopped distributing Acrobat Reader for GNU/Linux. So yeah, great hope there. Even if they compile the module for GNU/Linux because Mozilla asks them to then we can expect the typical Adobe software safety and quality... Remember HTML5 was supposed to rid the world of Flash, Silverlight, and such things. Not force those binary blobs into the spec.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        Having an EME spec allows for competition in the DRM market, it creates a business opportunity for a company (or potentially a solo dev) to develop a cross platform solution. EME means you rely less on Adobe code than you did previously as they are no longer shipping an entire runtime, just the content protection module.
        fafner 12y ago
        You are completely wrong here. Please note that the EME proposal does _not_ specify a plugin interface for the Restriction module! It only specifies how the Restriction module is exposed to JavaScript. How the Restriction module is implemented or connected to the browser is up to the browser developer. Both Google and Microsoft are involved in the creation of the spec and Apple is also supporting it. All three companies make up a large share of the web browser market. And all three companies have their existing DRM solutions which they are using for their EME implementation. None of them have announced a plugin interface to allow other companies to provide a DRM module. The only browser vendor who wants to implement EME via a plugin is Mozilla. Simply because there can't be a free software Restriction module implementation (and consequently due to the W3C's efforts there defacto can't be a fully free software web implementation). And Mozilla already made a deal with Adobe to provide the Restriction module. So no, there won't be a market. It will actually close down the market. Content providers will have to support those four DRM solutions if they want to offer their content on all those platforms. They won't have any choice.
- bsdetector 12y ago
  It's not just 1 DRM standard, it's 1 simple DRM standard that is only DRM. The DRM plugin is basically just request/provide license and decrypt frame. Even if it was encrypted media extensions vs silverlight that's 100k plugin vs 10 MiB plugin.
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  Actually, it's 1 DRM _plugin_ standard. There are still 50 DRM standards. Safari ships with Apple's DRM, Chrome ships with Google's DRM (Widevine), IE ships with Microsoft's DRM, Firefox doesn't ship with any DRM (but its EME plugin is only compatible with Adobe DRM).
josteink 12y ago
> Instead of having a plugin-free future with HTML5 we have an even worse situation. Indeed. Now we need to have one plugin, per browser, per operating system supported. Guess which next emerging OS wont be able to fully access "standard-compliant" HTML5? Yeah. All of them. W3C should be thrown to the sharks for this.
- azakai 12y ago
  Blaming the W3C is less effective than blaming the specific W3C members, and browser vendors, who had the power to push this through. Specifically: Google and Microsoft. Those two companies formulated EME together with Netflix.
  - fafner 12y ago
    I think blaming the W3C is absolutely correct here as well. The W3C has a principle to defend: The open web. And they are simply throwing it overboard by allowing this. TimBL even made a statement in favour of it. Yes, refusing to accept the standard won't change the reality because Google, Microsoft, and Apple are in favour of DRM and they'll do it no matter what the W3C will say. But at least the W3C would stay true to the principles of an open web.
    - josteink 12y ago
      The most offensive part about this whole shenanigans is the sheer hypocrisy behind it. Hollywood and its friend likes to claim that they need DRM to prevent piracy, to prevent freeloaders from getting use of something they shouldn't. Looking at the big picture though, they are the freeloaders and they are shameless about it too. They are more than eager to freeload on all the good parts about digital media (zero cost distribution, zero cost storage, zero cost reproduction, etc) while they insist that the business around it should still be limited to the ones they had with tangible, physical media and goods. Not only that, they want to freeload on all the open, accessible, cross-platform technology we have developed and built to sell their restricted content. And they have the balls to demand that these open standard (which has been successful because of their openness), should now be closed to accommodate their needs! They are hypocrites from end to end. They want and want and want, but are not willing to give an inch. They demand that we give up our freedom and valuable standards. And for what? To be able to see their content on a restricted service while we pretend its not available in a superior DRM-free format illegally everywhere else on the internet. It's just disgusting. Why not just let the whole DRM thing go? Let us access the content in a superior, portable format and don't ruin the future of the web over the semantics of how it gets projected onto the customers screen of choice, on their platform of choice.

by fafner 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

"No DRM" was never an option. The option was between 1 DRM standard and 50 (so silverlight and widevine and....). The W3C made the most pragmatic choice, here. I think DRM is still crap, but one system is unambiguously better than >1.

girvo 12y ago
Except Flash was at least used for stuff other than just DRM, so there was an incentive to get it working across all OSes. Linux is going to struggle once this is adopted, at least open browsers will, and that makes me sad
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  The openness of the browser has nothing to do with it, the browser provides an interface to the DRM mechanism which could be open or closed source. Open source browsers like firefox already support proprietary plugins such as Flash. If anything this makes Linux support easier, because you no longer have to provide support for an entire virtual machine and all APIs such as Flash or Silverlight. The only software required will be the DRM module itself as everything else can be provided by the browser.
  - fafner 12y ago
    The DRM mechanism can't really be open source. You could simply change it to write the unencrypted video data to the disk if it were. A plugin DRM module will also have to do all of the video rendering and displaying. Because if it just hands the unencrypted stream back to the browser then you could change the browser to simply write it to disk. The relevant DRM mechanisms will come from Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Adobe. Both Apple and Microsoft have no interest in supporting GNU/Linux. You won't get their DRM on GNU/Linux no matter how simple it is. Google seems to ship their DRM now on the GNU/Linux version of Chrome. But I don't know if the license allows using it in other browsers. Which would be hindered by the fact that Google uses their own unspecified PAPPI. Adobe wants to provide a DRM module for Firefox EME mechanism. But we all know from enough bad experience how well Adobe does GNU/Linux support. Flash on GNU/Linux was even worse than on any other system until they simply stopped it. They recently even stopped distributing Acrobat Reader for GNU/Linux. So yeah, great hope there. Even if they compile the module for GNU/Linux because Mozilla asks them to then we can expect the typical Adobe software safety and quality... Remember HTML5 was supposed to rid the world of Flash, Silverlight, and such things. Not force those binary blobs into the spec.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Having an EME spec allows for competition in the DRM market, it creates a business opportunity for a company (or potentially a solo dev) to develop a cross platform solution. EME means you rely less on Adobe code than you did previously as they are no longer shipping an entire runtime, just the content protection module.
      - fafner 12y ago
        You are completely wrong here. Please note that the EME proposal does _not_ specify a plugin interface for the Restriction module! It only specifies how the Restriction module is exposed to JavaScript. How the Restriction module is implemented or connected to the browser is up to the browser developer. Both Google and Microsoft are involved in the creation of the spec and Apple is also supporting it. All three companies make up a large share of the web browser market. And all three companies have their existing DRM solutions which they are using for their EME implementation. None of them have announced a plugin interface to allow other companies to provide a DRM module. The only browser vendor who wants to implement EME via a plugin is Mozilla. Simply because there can't be a free software Restriction module implementation (and consequently due to the W3C's efforts there defacto can't be a fully free software web implementation). And Mozilla already made a deal with Adobe to provide the Restriction module. So no, there won't be a market. It will actually close down the market. Content providers will have to support those four DRM solutions if they want to offer their content on all those platforms. They won't have any choice.
bsdetector 12y ago
It's not just 1 DRM standard, it's 1 simple DRM standard that is only DRM. The DRM plugin is basically just request/provide license and decrypt frame. Even if it was encrypted media extensions vs silverlight that's 100k plugin vs 10 MiB plugin.
TD-Linux 12y ago
Actually, it's 1 DRM _plugin_ standard. There are still 50 DRM standards. Safari ships with Apple's DRM, Chrome ships with Google's DRM (Widevine), IE ships with Microsoft's DRM, Firefox doesn't ship with any DRM (but its EME plugin is only compatible with Adobe DRM).

josteink 12y ago

> Instead of having a plugin-free future with HTML5 we have an even worse situation. Indeed. Now we need to have one plugin, per browser, per operating system supported. Guess which next emerging OS wont be able to fully access "standard-compliant" HTML5? Yeah. All of them. W3C should be thrown to the sharks for this.

azakai 12y ago
Blaming the W3C is less effective than blaming the specific W3C members, and browser vendors, who had the power to push this through. Specifically: Google and Microsoft. Those two companies formulated EME together with Netflix.
- fafner 12y ago
  I think blaming the W3C is absolutely correct here as well. The W3C has a principle to defend: The open web. And they are simply throwing it overboard by allowing this. TimBL even made a statement in favour of it. Yes, refusing to accept the standard won't change the reality because Google, Microsoft, and Apple are in favour of DRM and they'll do it no matter what the W3C will say. But at least the W3C would stay true to the principles of an open web.
  - josteink 12y ago
    The most offensive part about this whole shenanigans is the sheer hypocrisy behind it. Hollywood and its friend likes to claim that they need DRM to prevent piracy, to prevent freeloaders from getting use of something they shouldn't. Looking at the big picture though, they are the freeloaders and they are shameless about it too. They are more than eager to freeload on all the good parts about digital media (zero cost distribution, zero cost storage, zero cost reproduction, etc) while they insist that the business around it should still be limited to the ones they had with tangible, physical media and goods. Not only that, they want to freeload on all the open, accessible, cross-platform technology we have developed and built to sell their restricted content. And they have the balls to demand that these open standard (which has been successful because of their openness), should now be closed to accommodate their needs! They are hypocrites from end to end. They want and want and want, but are not willing to give an inch. They demand that we give up our freedom and valuable standards. And for what? To be able to see their content on a restricted service while we pretend its not available in a superior DRM-free format illegally everywhere else on the internet. It's just disgusting. Why not just let the whole DRM thing go? Let us access the content in a superior, portable format and don't ruin the future of the web over the semantics of how it gets projected onto the customers screen of choice, on their platform of choice.