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 ;) ;) ;)
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.
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.
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