What makes you think this will? This standard would still require proprietary binary blobs to be built for every platform that the DRM creator cares to support.
Either data is DRM-encumbered or it's not. The basic issues of rights of creators vs. rights of distributors vs. rights of consumers are exactly the same.
All you're doing by arguing against a standardised way of using DRM on web sites is leaving lots of little walled gardens. Having all the data you want, in an unencumbered format, in a nice open field where anyone can play, isn't an option that's on the table right now. It won't magically become an option just because you force all the distributors to develop custom schemes for their DRM instead.
It helps because the barrier to entry to creating your own binary client is high. I don't have to worry about my local news station going coo-coo and DRMing their entire site because "Hey, it's easy so why not? Gotta stop those dastardly copy-pasters."
It's a serious question. DRM doesn't prevent you from consuming the content they provide under their terms, does it?
The classic argument against DRM is that you don't really own something that you've purchased. But...you aren't purchasing your local news channel's broadcasts. You don't own them, you don't have any claim on them. What's wrong with the owner deciding what can be done with them?
The terms are not my primary concern. The capability to read it is. I want to be able to read it.
Right now I cannot use Netflix on my primary operating system. I can read the news because without strong incentive to DRM it (as Netflix has, their licensing terms require it) it is not worth implementing DRM.
Nobody is suggesting a <html drm="true"> change here. We're not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) which provide for challenge-response authentication and decryption of a media stream. Nobody has suggested that we should be adding some mechanism to HTML that allows a browser to talk to a webserver if the browser possess the right DRM license.
Have you read the specs? A proprietary binary blob is still required. The proposal is only for a standardized interface with that binary blob. If that binary blob is not provided for a particular platform then you are left out in the cold, as before.
> not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement
Gee, you think news sites may have multimedia? Naaahhh...
Yes, I certainly have. I thought that perhaps you hadn't because you kept using the verb "read" rather than "watch" or "listen", which would actually apply to this discussion.
I'm quite well aware that binary blobs are required for the CDM. The requirement of a license server and server-side encryption compatible with a client-deployed CDM would still be prohibitive for the "small fish" (after all, if they cared, they could just use Flash or Silverlight like is done today).
I suppose I am not as confident as you that small fish would stay out of the game. If. I was, my only objection would be that all things proprietary need to stay away from standards.
Right now I cannot use Netflix on my primary operating system. I can read the news because without strong incentive to DRM it (as Netflix has, their licensing terms require it) it is not worth implementing DRM.
You appear to have made a poor choice of operating system. Perhaps you should try a better one for your needs? There are lots of choices, and many of them would let you use Netflix if that's what you want to do.
Is this an argument you actually think that people concerned about this proposal will find satisfying? Or is it just something that you find satisfying to say. You cannot possibly think the first...
(Furthermore, I am able to watch Netflix videos on other devices. The inability to watch Netflix on my primary computer does not bother me. I don't have that support now, I won't in the future, I never had it and I never expected it.)
Is this an argument you actually think that people concerned about this proposal will find satisfying?
No, I'm just explaining why a problem of your own making, which will affect a tiny minority of people interested in viewing content on-line, is not reasonable grounds for undermining standards that would probably be in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
Or is it just something that you find satisfying to say.
Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in.
I am well aware that few people would be negatively impacted. I don't delude myself, I've already stated upthread that Linux is not a major player and, furthermore, that it never will be.
That does not give me reason to support this proposal.
> in the interests of the overwhelming majority.
It is in the interest of Netflix. Netflix streaming currently "Just Works"(tm) for most consumers, and it will continue to do so. Netflix wants it because it would make their lives easier. I have no reason to support this, and every reason to not.
The only thing that might be worse than the proposal itself is the absurd amount of misinformed Linux users who think that this will allow them to use Netflix or who think that Netflix really just wishes so hard that it could support Linux but is technically incapable of doing so... That is maddening.
"Satisfying, no, but it is tiresome to watch people campaign for openness with one breath and then complain with the next that they can't access things that are paid for and only available in the closed world they chose not to participate in."
I have no complaints with the status quo. I am oppose a proposal that would threaten it in a way that has the strong potential to negatively impact me. "Paid for" has absolutely no place in this equation for me. I pay for and consume many things, some of which I have to use in particular ways. I'm not bothered by this current state of affairs. I've made tradeoffs and I am not complaining about them (unlike many Linux users who refuse to stop complaining about no Netflix on Linux).
It helps because the barrier to entry to creating your own binary client is high.
It really isn't. It's significant, but for the kinds of royalties the big media guys are trying to protect for a major sports event or a Hollywood blockbuster or smash hit TV show, they'd pay it a dozen times over. The reality is that just means only a few of the most popular platforms will be able to view the DRM-encumbered content, and people on niche platforms will lose out.
If the barrier to entry is sufficiently high that small fish currently do not try to cross it.
I really don't give a shit if Netflix uses DRM. I honestly don't have a problem with them or other "big fish" using it. I am concerned about every fish using it.
