Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 13:15 -0700, Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Matt Ivie <matt.ivie@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >         "No, you are missing my point entirely. Microsoft ship
> >         PlayReady as part of Windows Media Foundation. In principle,
> >         any browser running on Windows can make use of the same APIs
> >         that Internet Explorer uses to play back protected content.
> >         The DRM is contained in the Operating System, not shipped with
> >         the browser. What we call a CDM in this case is the shim
> >         between the EME API and the platform APIs. This does rely on
> >         MS making those APIs publicly available, which is why I say
> >         "in principle". Nevertheless, we hope MS will do this and that
> >         browsers will take advantage of those APIs or find some other
> >         way to support the JS APIs.
> >
> >
> >         You are right that a CDM that implements all the capabilities
> >         of the DRM itself, in software, without making use of platform
> >         APIs for that purpose, couldn't be Free Software as it is
> >         required to be non-user-modifiable."
> >
> >
> >         Your first paragraph was more on point with the idea that
> >         browsers running in the Windows environment could make us of
> >         the APIs on Windows systems.
> >
> >
> >         The second paragraph was more vague and can be interpreted as
> >         expecting the same behaviour in all Operating Systems.
> >
> >
> > I didn't intend it to be interpreted that way.
> Fair enough
>
>
> >         Taken in context with only the first paragraph one could draw
> >         the conclusion that you're only talking about the Windows
> >         environment but taken in context with the broader conversation
> >         it ties into ideas previously discussed.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain ?
>
> I was just trying to draw a distinction of why I took the meaning of the
> first paragraph differently from the second.
>

Yes. You understood correctly. The two paragraphs are about completely
different things.


>
> >
> >         In regard to whether running the non-free software on the OS
> >         in order to give an API for EME to tie into, and whether or
> >         not it is considered a fair exchange or a compromise:
> >
> >
> >         Clearly it is a matter of opinion. I think that's why this
> >         whole thing is such a point of debate. The problem though, is
> >         this: While the specs for creating a CDM might be open, there
> >         is no way to make the CDM free software. No matter how you
> >         slice it, the only way to make hollywood movies available
> >         under this scheme is by the use of some non-free software.
> >         That I know of, there are no other W3C standards that can't be
> >         implemented in Free Software. I know that to someone that
> >         would gladly trade away their computing freedoms for
> >         convenience and features this seems like a very trivial
> >         argument to have.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've given a number of examples before where, in practice, you need to
> > use non-free software/hardware in order to get the performance
> > necessary for certain applications, even though the specification
> > could be implemented entirely in software, with some lesser
> > performance. s/performance/robustness/ and you have a similar
> > situation here. I believe the salient difference is that for the other
> > specifications *in principle*, if not yet in practice, one could make
> > a totally 'free' software/hardware stack, whereas this is not even
> > possible in principle for DRM given a requirement for
> > user-modifiability (i.e. non-robustness).
>
> This is true.
> >
> > Anyway, given the absence of consensus, I'd suggest that individuals
> > be left free to make up their own minds whether to enter into this
> > trade or not, that they be as informed as possible about the
> > consequences and that - as far as possible - we work together to
> > ensure that that are not asked to trade more (in terms of security,
> > privacy etc.) than is strictly necessary.
> >
> The problem is that once it is a standard that trade becomes
> increasingly difficult for the average user to weigh.


Won't it be easier for the average user to weigh if it is their browser
that is presenting them with the option, rather than the vendor of the
content ?


> The short term is
> that they give up some control of their computer to watch some movies.
> The long term is that in order to have access to movies in the future
> they don't have the option of choosing any lesser known operating
> system/browser combinations.
>

I'm still confused as to why you think the set of OS/browser combinations
which can't be used to watch the movies in question will be smaller (or at
least the same) if W3C doesn't work on EME. I think there are reasonable
grounds for thinking this set will be larger if W3C works on EME.


> This is somewhat a problem with flash and silverlight(less so of course)
> right now but those two products are just that, products.

They'll go
> away eventually.


No, they won't, if there are popular services that depend on them. Users
will, quite reasonably, demand continued access to the content that they
want.

Microsoft have announced end-of-life for Silverlight. Do you think that
when that time comes, if there is no alternative in the browsers
themselves, content providers will shrug and modify their contracts to
allow DRM-free distribution of their content ? Or is it more likely that
another plugin based solution will emerge, giving users no choice of what
to install in order to view the content ?

...Mark


> Standards tend to stick around a while. Standardizing
> something like this that requires non-free software to function is very
> anti-competitive. That I know of, no other standards in the W3C can't be
> implemented using Free Software.
> >
> > ...Mark
>
>
> --
> /* Free software is a matter of liberty, not price.
>    Visit GNU.org * FSF.org * Trisquel.info */
>
>