Re: Cory Doctorow: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards, says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave" [via Restricted Media Community Group]

Emmanuel Revah wrote:

> Why is that finding a better "thing" is considered as the only way to
> avoid W3C's recommendation of EME ?
>

I'm going to come back to this point, as I think it is key to progressing.

*Current situation:*
*
*
People producing paid video-content want a protection mechanism. We all
know DRM is not very effective, but the content-providers consider it
effective enough, and don't see a viable alternative.

The video services (Netflix, Google, Amazon prime etc.) have to provide
something the content-providers agree to, and so far that is DRM. The
service providers would like to move away from Flash/Silverlight, so some
form of HTML5 video DRM is inevitable, and has already happened.

*Past tense*. I believe that Chromecast uses EME or something very like it,
and Netflix and Hulu provide content that way. I haven't seen that
confirmed anywhere, but I don't think it supports Flash/Silverlight, and
Netflix and Hulu wouldn't be able to use it without DRM.

The general public don't care about DRM unless it obviously gets in the
way, so there is no reason to think these businesses approaches will fail.
(See sales figures from Chromecast, iTunes, Apple TV, or Netflix usage
figures.) Any points about "respecting users" fail as (in those terms) most
users don't respect themselves. The friction of using Flash/Silverlight
will become bigger than EME based solutions.

*Future:*
*
*
So the question isn't about whether EME is a good idea, it is:
1. Is it better for HTML5 based DRM to be specced within the W3C?
2. Is there a better alternative that the content-producers will accept?

Personally, given that HTML5 based DRM has already happened, I would rather
it is specced in a public forum. I don't see any form of DRM progressing
past video in the W3C, but I will fight it if people try.

For the second question, I think that the only way to get rid of DRM is to
provide a viable alternative. Unfortunately, the only way to persuade the
content-providers will be to show it is successful, so a standards body
isn't really the place to do that. It will probably take a new-player in
the market to work from the bottom-up (e.g. with indie movies) to make the
point well enough.

I suspect that there won't be a viable alternative available to meet the
goal of 'protected content' before EME comes to fruition. However, I could
see EME being deprecated in a few years if/when an alternative comes along.

That is why an alternative is critical, there needs to be a viable way to
meet the goals of protecting (video) content, or proof that it doesn't
matter to the businesses that currently rely on it.

-Alastair