Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#5

Post by Touche » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 2:58 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

It will work under Google Chrome (not Chromium) on Linux most likely, as Google is a DRM vendor.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#6

Post by code_duck » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 2:59 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

They're going to have to create ways to play their media on Linux, with the growing popularity of the OS for appliances such as living room video players and products like the Steam Machine.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#7

Post by baddox » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 3:00 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

It's pretty much baked into the definition of DRM that it may not work on all of your devices.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#8

Post by duncan_bayne » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

EME will work on Linux. The thing is, the CDMs with which it is designed to interface won't.

It is technically possible to produce a purely FOSS CDM that will compile on pretty much any platform. However that idea has been rejected by content licensees on the grounds that it won't meet requirements, as defined by licence agreements that (so far) no-one is authorised to post on the W3C discussion list.

Other ideas that have been rejected are server-side watermarking (too expensive, doesn't meet requirements) and client side watermarking (doesn't meet requirements).

So, myself and (most) others are rejecting EME on the grounds that it is inseparable from "non-user-modifiable client components" (a wonderful phrase I picked up on the list), a.k.a. closed-source, proprietary CDMs that are tied to particular OSs.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#9

Post by krasin » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 3:01 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

you should not be okay with DRM. It's as simple as it's: DRM is the form of slavery.

Re: Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

#10

Post by duncan_bayne » Tue, Jan 14, 2014, 3:02 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #7

girvo wrote: post #4

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

It's pretty much baked into the definition of DRM that it may not work on all of your devices.

There is no technical reason that DRM technology can't be FOSS and use non-secret keys; this is a result of licensing agreements with content owners. I'm hoping to have those agreements made public so technical discussions surrounding EME can take place with a degree of transparency.