Can some one explain to me why having, say, an HTML 5 based video player with DRM would be worse than one implemented in a closed platform like Silverlight or Flash? I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to make an argument here.
If HTML5 video is going to rely on buggy third party DRM plugins, we lose the benefit that was the whole point of HTML5 video.
If this binary blob from Adobe isn't presented with a similar UI as regular "plugins" (that the user can disable or uninstall), then I will look into writing an extension to disable it, or perhaps rely on a Firefox fork to give me a Flash-lite(tm) free browser.
1. http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/11/13/google-declares-flas...
Again, it's been stated that you will be clearly given the choice to disable the CDM entirely.
then, no browser involved.
Only HTML5 video that has DRM will rely on EME plugins. We've lost nothing. In fact we've gained. HTML5 video now has a strict superset of the capabilities it had before.
Without EME:
Flash HTML5
+------+--------+
non-DRM video | yes | yes |
+------+--------+
DRM video | yes | no |
+------+--------+
Flash HTML5
+------+--------+
non-DRM video | yes | yes |
+------+--------+
DRM video | yes | yes |
+------+--------+It will now be almost as easy to implement video with DRM in production as it is to implement HTML5 video without DRM. Every provider will now use DRM. Netflix will use fancy DRM, which mostly works. Everyone else will pay $19.95 for theirs.
Never thought we were going to bring back the age of Realplayer (and the million others.)
No, it won't.
> We have lost video that did not have DRM.
We may lose some because it may get easier to implement DRM and that may tip the balance for some content source.
> It will now be almost as easy to implement video with DRM in production as it is to implement HTML5 video without DRM.
But plenty of sources will still choose not to use DRM, as is the case even with other formats where DRM is well-estbalished as an option with simple toolchains.
pointy haired bosses.
Before this change, being DRM free was at least somewhat pragmatic. Now it's only principles and consumer rights, and we live in a capitalist society, who the fuck cares about those?
This is a terrible development.
As I see it, it kind of looks like it help DRM, first by legitimizing it, i.e. it doesn't carry the same weight if it's something proposed by only one corporation ("these guys are crazy and don't know what they are doing") vs the weight it carries by virtue of being part of the HTML standard ("if it's a standard it must be already accepted by everyone so it must be good!")
And second, by preventing fragmentation among DRM solutions, i.e. it will be easier for DRM users (not end-users) to interact with one another and even innovate and pass on that innovation (licensing, etc) instead of fightning among them like it happens nowadays (i.e. SecuROM vs their competition, etc).
Again, that's what it seems to me, but maybe someone else can provide a different explanation?
Only a subset of the available OS and processor architectures will be supported.
Flash was designed years ago and even though everyone wants it to die, we're still feeling its pain. Designing a similar solution in 2014 is just asking for trouble for the next 10-20 years IMO.
Oh, and you're giving up the opportunity/right to audit the code that runs on your devices.
Or in a darker version - can we make sure the new plugins don't scan your drive for "incompatible content". Game anti-cheat systems already do that. At least flash / silverlight was playing nice so far, unlike some of the more interesting DRM systems in the past.
The problem with the former case, then, is that I get a browser that ostensibly supports my freedom, and this code that runs things secretly, without letting me intervene or analyze, comes in with it, under the radar.
In the latter case, I have to take a deliberate action, explicitly agree to a license, and install a product I know to be freedom-denying. So I have something icky on my computer if/when I specifically choose to, and I know exactly what the icky stuff is, why it is there, and how to get rid of it if I decide to.
I think it would be much better if Mozilla were to present the DRM stuff as an optional, not-installed-by-default plug-in with clearly restricted scope, access, and capabilities. If they do this, then they probably ought to spin off the group that makes the plug-in as a separate organization.
" * Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.
* We have surrounded the closed-source portion with an open-source wrapper. This allows us to monitor and better understand the scope of activities of the closed-source code."
So your hypothetical built-into-the-browser and on-by-default implementation does not describe the same thing that has been announced for Firefox. Indeed the actual plan is quite close to what you suggest in your final paragraph.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challen...