Yep. But they are already working on their own, so you might not be successful in marking one you develop to them, but nothing is stopping you or them under EME. Prior to EME this would have been much less feasible.
CDMs don’t have to contain DRM. They can, but they don’t have to. Says that right in the intro. EME also allows new media formats and types to be played as soon as there is a CDM to decode it, EME is not specific to DRM and contains NO DRM, it does make using DRM CDMs easier, but it makes using any CDM easier. The w3C has been very clear that this isn’t just for DRM and does not contain DRM, its functions go much much beyond that to improve so many aspects of media interaction. For example it also improves and standardizes playback controls and assistive features for the disabled.
this is much easier for them to do under EME. New startups distributing any content, their own, other peoples, doesn’t matter, they suddenly got a lot more power and no longer are stuck using a system from one of the big three as they were previously.
I’d be happy to try if you can make them more clear. What specifically is the fallacy that the post is based upon? Those are the right words right? I’ve tried going point by point in all my replies, maybe a few points weren’t clear and i missed them.
[quote=“VenTatsu, post:6, topic:104428”]
Except that the premise of that blog post is based on a fallacy.
[/quote] it is accurate and logically sound from all accounts I can find, and from studying the spec, which is not at all surprising considering the incredible quality of the minds that worked together to create it. it sticks to the facts, if you are claiming it is based on a logically fallacy i’d find it helpful to know what specifically that was so that it has some meaning and context.
I’m saying they now have a lot more freedom then they previously had. Their situation has vastly improved in multiple ways, and gotten worse in exactly zero ways, contrary to this articles claim.
No, not revisionist, i was working in this field at that time. Please look up which browsers actually implemented the NPAPI, and what it actually achieved, and what a mess it was. It was a security nightmare and really poorly designed, cross browser plugins never worked like you’d think they would have. Also you misunderstand what it is. Absolutely nothing was decrypted using the NPAPI, that was the interface people would use for their plugins to interface with the browser, the API itself had no media capabilities at all. None. It is simply a way for a proprietary piece of code to register with and interact with the browser and browser content. The proprietary plugin code did all the decryption and displaying of the media. NPAPI was part of the browser and couldn’t do anything by itself.
One would have to install a plugin such as Adobe Flash to use their proprietary media decoder FMLE, or Silverlight to use Microsofts proprietary media decoder.
You are in luck, IT IS!!! The article with the “fallacy” points this out, as does the intro to the spec.
That is exactly what it is. DRM is just one use, IT IS NOT DRM SPECIFIC.
well not here anyway. it is pretty much considered fact everywhere else, because you can actually, you know, test it right now in browsers and have been able to do so for years. It isn’t an opinion or argument.
Designed intentionally to allow both. a rich web is open meaning not limited to any type of content, which of course means BOTH. people assume the wrong open.
This discussion first occurred when the 4th website required that images be allowed and the tag was created. Further following, 2 of the 3 image formats supported on the early web were proprietary and had to be licensed. They are still two of the most popular image formats in use in the world, their history and use are a fascinating read when you have the time. same thing went for zip compression. same for all the initial video formats. etc. open web != open source or open non-encrypted formats for media.
Sure I’d start with the Open Content Decryption Module.
but there are 3-4 others that have reached usable code bases, and a bunch more up and coming now that this is a standard.
No, not quite, you could make a browser or piece of software that implemented EME and could consume content from the Widevide CDM based on your license. If you used that to circumvent the DRM you’d be likely breaking a law in your country. Those laws have to be changed if you want the right to break DRM and not have it be illegal.
I included your quote so that your direct words would speak for themselves, what you quote me saying is just below your actual exact words.
Improving many of the user pains in interacting with DRM does make DRM less bad, but i agree with the core idea that DRM is not a good thing overall. It is possible for it to be a lot “less bad” and still not be a good idea on theory. problem is there is reality of how things are today, and where we’d like to see them be ideally, it is going to take honest factual discussions to get from a to b and we need to be realistic int he meantime. Am I for DRM? no. Do I think EME is a huge step forward in multiple ways and a huge improvement for content creators and consumers, even if it makes DRM easier? Yes, absolutely.
Did someone in 2017 really just suggest we go back to the worst idea in web history? Flash is one of the worst offenders of closed content ever created. Flash is one of the most exploited vector points for malware, and one of most worst offenders for violating user privacy. Also if adobe didn’t write a version of flash for your system you were sol. flash isn’t on ios which makes up a good percentage of web traffic and almost everyone has agreed that moving away from Flash to the much more secure web standards is a massive step in the right direction, this includes EME.
Wait what? That is EME. That is the whole point of EME, “automatic discovery of CDMs”. Have you ever been prompted to download a CDM when viewing a video that uses the
The KeySystem rights negotiation is an automatic process. Similar to the way a mobile app tells the mobile os which “things it needs to be able to do”. Chrome plugins do this as well. That part of the spec is saying that it is up to the browser to enforce which permissions it will allow and deny to the CDM based on its keysystem request. This is not a reference to a manual code vetting process. CDMs run sandboxed, remember?
I’d suggest reading more about EME outside of this “reality bubble”. A lot of people have written a lot about it, and no one is making the kind of claims you’ll find here. Many people discuss the huge improvements it allows for, while still lamenting the state of modern DRM as a whole.
