Slashdot Mirror
Will Google Oppose DRM On HTML5 Video?
An anonymous reader let us know that "Mozilla has committed to not implement DRM in Firefox for WebM HTML5 video even though it is theoretically possible. Microsoft has asked Google and the WebM community several other questions that still have not been answered, but this one seems more important: will Google commit to keeping WebM in Chrome DRM-free? Does our community think that is important for the open web and free software?"
Direct Rendering manager belongs in the kernel, not in a user process ;) ;) ;)
Funny, I thought DRM was theoretically impossible. Something to do with Bob and Eve being the same person.
Man, do you people think or do any research at all? Or do you just like trolling?
Mozilla Firefox (~30% of the browser market share) will never have support for H.264. Never.
Chrome (~11% of browser market share) no longer supports H.264.
H.264 cannot be the standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free.
That's why WebM is a big deal.
I spent a long time opposed to DRM because of the lock in effect. Except that reality has pretty much rendered DRM as obsolete.
DRM does not and has not protected video game publishers.
DRM does not and has not prevented every significant song, movie, or other work from being easily, readily, and widely available on torrents.
DRM does not and has not generally resulted in an improved customer experience.
In a very real sense, it is frequently easier to use the pirate version of a game than the normal one. I love the GTA series on PC, and every single game I ever purchased I almost immediately installed the No-CD cracks. Yes, that's right. I bought all the games of GTA I ever played, and I cracked all of them just so I didn't have to dicker with the stupid DRM.
So, other than annoy the end users, what purpose does DRM serve?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Right now the BBC serves H.264 streams via flash and it has pretty lousy performance (Flash) or pretty awesome performance (via the same stream in XBMC). If they want to shed Flash entirely and still serve a large proportion of the web then a limited amount of content protection is almost inevitable because the content producers (ie, not the BBC but the people who own some of the shows they broadcast) demand it.
Sure, ideally there would be no content protection at all (it really doesn't affect the free distribution of the content at all) but right now that is just not a reality.
I would love BBC iPlayer to be able to serve H.264 with HTML5 (it already does to iPhone user agent strings) since it would free me from the flash performance hog that makes HD streams stutter even on a powerful desktop machine. It won't happen if a sizeable portion of the browser market won't support it.
I'm only talking about iPlayer here, but it applies to many video services across the web - trying to force the DRM hand too early will just perpetuate Flash.
There is no way to have standardized DRM... The whole idea of DRM relies entirely on security through obscurity, and if you publish a standard then that obscurity is gone.
Even with an obscured scheme, if it's worth it to anyone (ie there aren't easier ways to get the same content) then someone will reverse engineer the format and work out how to extract the data from it in a usable way. This will _ALWAYS_ be possible, because the player itself has to get the data into a usable format itself in order to display it.
All DRM does is inconvenience legitimate users, pirates will just download media that is not drm encumbered and have a better user experience.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
1) Blu-Ray players will soon shut off people from using component video to play 1080p content, downscaling to 540p. I'd call that "ruining your ability to watch it".
2) Many DRM schemes backfire and give users a lot of trouble (see StarForce for a good example).
3) YouTube videos can be quite easily scraped off the site and downloaded, so Flash doesn't implement a whole lot of DRM either.
There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market.
Furthermore, Mozilla's already said it many times. They're not in it to get the biggest marketshare ever, they're there to push the open web and open source movements. They want standards, they want open content. Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission. I regard Mozilla as a watchdog that tries to keep the web in line with the open source community's values. They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
>>>H.264... is extremely unfriendly to open source.
So then - how do open source programs like WinAmp, MP Classic, Miro, and VLC Player get away with using it? If they can do it, Chrome and Firefox should be able to do it too. (And Opera - since they are not open source at all.)
More importantly, how do I get the WebM video I just downloaded to work in my iPod? Or my TV? They only do Apple and MPEG codecs.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
DRM does not and has not protected video game publishers.
Yes it does. The digital restrictions management on video game consoles protects established video game publishers from competition from smaller indie developers. Console makers have a history of not granting licenses to micro-ISVs, and "homebrew" software relies on fragile jailbreaks that the console maker can and does fix with an update to the console's firmware.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest. Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
DRM is, in fact, evil(even if you don't think that its objectives are.)
DRM is, inevitably, simply cannot be done any other way, a class of methods and mechanisms whereby my computer is placed under a 3rd party's partial control in order to make it obey their interests, rather than mine. Even if I happen to agree with the particular rule being thus enforced(which is hardly assured, most DRM users go beyond the rights copyright law allows), it is the change in the ultimate controller of the system that is the inevitable and unacceptable consequence...
The fact that any system sufficiently robust to allow for effective DRM also allows for effective censorship is just icing on the cake...
WinAmp is open source now? Did I miss that new item on /.?
How to VLC, MediaPlayerClassic, etc. do it? They simply accept the possible patent lawsuits. There isn't anything to get from those components, because there is no company behind it with a lot of money.
Go ahead, hide the download button. I have VLC plugin, and I'll just tell VLC to pipe everything it plays to files on the hard drive. No problemo. Whoops, sorry - you already knew that, but the DRM dummies didn't. I should learn to keep my mouth shut, huh?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Problem is, there can't really be a standards-based mechanism for delivering DRM anything, at least not in the sense of open standards on the Web.
Right now, if I stick to HTML5 and stuff like WebM, there is the theoretical possibility of me taking nothing but existing open source stuff, or even starting from scratch, and writing software that can consume that media. Pretty much any DRM which allowed me to do that wouldn't really be doing its job as DRM.
The better route is to suck it up and leave the DRM behind.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Nope, not quite. VLC and so on are all based in France, or some other country that doesn't accept software patents as valid. The majority of the world can use H.264, it's only people who want to ship products in the USA and a couple of other countries that have a problem. Unfortunately for Google, they are based in California, so they have to respect these patents.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>>>H.264 cannot be the standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free.
Statement of fact made.
Too bad its untrue. There's no requirement that HTML5 codecs have to be royalty free. (At least not that I'm aware.)
As for H.264 it's already in use in billions of device from things as small as iPods, to home Televisions, to giant Movie and TV studios. It has become the defacto standard just like VHS, DVD, and Bluray.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
HTML6 and the tag haven't been approved yet, so he didn't know.
H.264 cannot be the standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free.
That is not a true statement.
First, I'd like to point out the complete lack of any actual content in your reply beyond ad hominem and a bit of self-aggrandizement.
However, it's a bit odd to peg H.264 as being in a desperate state or it's support a form of zealotry. It's the dominant web codec, it's the dominant portable device codec, and it's superior to WebM. These are factual statements.
Zealotry is pushing an inferior technology for ideological reasons. Desperation is resorting to flaming/trolling in an effort to advance one's zealotry.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with building a better Web.
If you want to build a better web, pushing an inferior codec is a strange way to go about it.
Hey!
</sarcasm></sarcasm></joke>
Close your damn tags!
I'm not sure about Netflix, but the DRM that Hulu and BBC's iPlayer use, RTMPE, was broken a long time ago. However, while it's possible to find programs for saving the streams from these services, but there don't seem to be widely distributed, user friendly programs to do so. I don't see why the situation would necessarily be any different if there were no DRM at all. People seem sufficiently happy with the service Hulu and iPlayer provide that they're not going to the trouble of downloading software to get round the services terms and conditions.
what name would you recommend to replace Digital Restrictions Management?
That's easy:
Content Restrictions Against Playability
or CRAP, for short.
You mean if there's no way for movie studios to control everyone's computers? That's what it really is. We are much better off without such adoption.
Nobody anywhere thinks "I want to initiate some 'dominoes' and make my DVD player be living room policeman". Nobody wants restrictions, nobody wants unskippable bullshit, nobody thinks what you're thinking that they do when they push play on the dvd player. You're totally confusing what people *want* versus what they *tolerate* because they have to. What they want it for it to play when the push play, skip when they push skip. That's it.
If you don't believe me try asking some other people "do you WANT your DVD player to refuse to skip FBI warnings or do you merely tolerate it because you have to?". I bet you not one single honest person tells you they WANT FBI warnings.
As for the page setup dialog being displayed, most of the time I do, as do most people. This concept of studying people to make software that does what they want intuitively is called "usability" (though I don't think it is practiced much anymore, sadly). And as you pointed out, a lot of software allows this to be customized, unlike DVD players in the US.
As for the annoying printer drivers, well good thing it isn't illegal to sell less annoying printers. We can't say the same for DVD players.