Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by zamalek on Friday July 07, 2017 @05:51PM (#14722441)

> Option 1 is the best because playing DRM content should be Netflix's problem.

By not making it a standard we'll make sure that Neflix never, ever comes to Linux. That guarantees that proprietary operating systems, browsers and hardware will always be prevalent.

> By making it a standard it means that we'll never, ever get rid of it.

<marquee> and <blink> were standards. NPAPI was a quasi-standard.

Black-and-white worldviews are often accurate albeit negligently unrealistic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by AnssiH on Friday July 07, 2017 @07:14PM (#14722964)

> By not making it a standard we'll make sure that Neflix never, ever comes to Linux.

Netflix already works on Linux, with Chrome and Firefox: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742

It uses EME with closed-source CDMs bundled with the browser (Chrome) or downloaded by the browser (Firefox).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by jandrese on Monday July 10, 2017 @10:50AM (#14736426)

My understanding is that it's using basically what the W3C is now considering. The browser manufacturers already decided on this months ago and implemented it. Now the question is if it becomes part of the standard so there aren't annoying differences between each browser.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by jimktrains2 on Friday July 07, 2017 @06:03PM (#14722531)

> By not making it a standard we'll make sure that Neflix never, ever comes to Linux.

Isn't the EME a system binary that would be specific to each platform? There's no guarantee tat they'll be a linux one for each provider.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by zamalek on Friday July 07, 2017 @07:14PM (#14722961)

Agreed. However, Widevine is Google's thing and it's plausible that they'd ship it with some non-free build of Chrome. Unless they're worried about trusting the OS, in which case my original argument is void.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by jimktrains2 on Friday July 07, 2017 @07:21PM (#14723009)

Plausible sure. anyone using any other plugin is also plausible, though much less likely.

The point is since it's not standard Linux and BSD will get the shaft.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by wbl on Friday July 07, 2017 @08:39PM (#14723386)

Wildvine works on Linux today.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by jimktrains2 on Friday July 07, 2017 @10:20PM (#14723708)

And other plugins that other providers might choose to use?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have tw... by gsnedders on Saturday July 08, 2017 @07:35AM (#14725045)

In most browsers, they aren't actually plugins in the typical sense. As far as I'm aware, Chrome doesn't allow any other EME modules to be installed, so if a provider wants to work with Chrome they must support Widevine.

[ Parent | on HN ]