A previous explanation: Tim Berners-Lee gave the green light to the inclusion of Encrypted Media Extensions in HTML5. The famous Encrypted Media Extensions are a platform that would allow digitally protected content to be offered through the browser, without the need to install plugins such as Flash or Silverlight.
It is not technically a DRM.…… peeeeeeeeeeeeeeero it does give an open door to its implementation. For that reason the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and practically may be made by each free software user or activist) is screaming in the sky, while a song by Those who were singing (where Tim is the Juan Carlos mentioned in the song).
The father of the World Wide Web give at least one explanation.
Different users have different preferences. Putting the user first does not help us satisfy possibly incompatible requests from users: Some users want watch high-budget movies at home, some users want experiment with the code. The best solution will be the one that can satisfy everyone, and we are still looking for it. If we can't find it, we'll look for solutions that do the least harm to these and other voiced requests from users, authors, implementers, and others in the ecosystem.
I remind you that 30% of internet traffic in the US it's from Netflix. And Netflix hates Silverlight and Flash as much as we do.
It also says that the W3C cannot dictate what browsers or content providers can do, and that the discussion is open. The answer …… .. is still exactly the same as I said before (It's nothing baby, just Juan Carlos, one less traitor).
And it is that in truth, you have to have titanium eggs to write something that is not aligned with that opinion. Come on, that even some pose build the great schism of HTML and follow other different specifications, such as WHATWG (I already gave you an alternative in case you want a hahaha).
Well, here are my two cents: Do you remember when Mozilla announced support for h264 a year and a half ago? Brendan Eich said:
H.264 is absolutely required to compete on mobiles. I don't think we can reject H.264 content in Firefox for Android or B2G (Firefox OS) and survive the mobile migration. Losing a battle is a bitter experience. I will not sweeten this pill. But we must swallow it if we want to succeed in our mobile initiatives. Failure on mobile is very prone to burying Mozilla in decay and irrelevance. So I am very much in favor of Andrea's proposal.
There you go. A red pill with cyanide. I recommend visiting the bug that they opened recently to request that Firefox in no way include EME support. It will have the same ending. Internet Explorer will rise from the ashes and together with Chrome (Chromium will be discarded), they will dominate the browser market.
And you web developers ……… .if you never used DRM on your pages, you are not going to start now. I already gave you an alternative if you want to follow it there. Another could be to wait for it to arrive the future seen by Brendan Eich (codecs superior to h264, good watermarking, etc).
And this is going to be the last part of the saga. I thought about talking about social networks but it makes me very emotional to talk about these things and it is not enough to talk about it here. I also couldn't talk about hard drive encryption, alternative email services, VPNs and other things because I don't even have them tested. Until the next op-ed.
I think that, as long as there is no drm in html5 in some way, content like Netflix's will never be distributed through it, so either it is implemented, or it will have to resign to have flash or silverlight installed. Or directly not enjoy that content.
Or maybe use bitcoins with the BitTorrent service.
The other option is that it is not through the browser that these contents are displayed.
That Netflix and the like make their own exclusive software (a netflix player, which is installed when contracting the service and does not use flash or silverlight) through which they distribute their content, has been an option that has been mentioned but which is curiously discarded in official and media speeches.
Why?
Surely because what is being sought is greater control in our browsers.
Because it is similar to using Flash or Silverlight, in addition to the fact that what is sought is to prevent DRM-protected videos from being downloaded to the hard disk via RAM memory.
How is it similar to flash?
Is Spotify similar to flash?
Download video from RAM? WTF !?
How and why would someone try to download videos from RAM?
Get your facts right!
* straight
I said any ball.
Here is an explanation of why Netflix is betting on html5
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-choose-html5-for-user.html
Well to say balls, better not to say anything ...
You could tear apart point by point what they say on the netflix blog.
In 2 of the 3 comments they responded they already did quite well.
So I'd better just summarize what they didn't tell you.
-News from three years ago, where they focus on a platform (ps3) which in a few months is out of date.
All the advantages they mention can be achieved with your own player and also the disadvantages of using the browser are avoided.
Finally ... for those who can read between the lines.
«We test every new idea, so we can measure the impact we're having on our customers. Are they finding more content to watch? Are they enjoying the TV shows and movies they're seeing better? «
Let's see ... the player is not appropriate because we all know that if they make one, surely they would not do it for linux ... much better if it works with a compatible drm plugin for all browsers and that's it.
@ pandev92
Putting the crystal ball aside, let's remember the same example I gave Diazepam.
Spotify has a client for PC, MAC, GNU / Linux, iPod / iPad, Blackberrie… ..
If Netflix does not want to release its player for GNU / Linux, worse for them, P2P and direct downloads are still the order of the day.
I also agree with that, if Netflix wants to protect its content, it should develop its own browser addon, as well as Netflix Player.
That would even allow access desde Linux, since being an addon for Firefox there would be no problems.
But Netflix came up with the damn idea of shitting a free standard like HTML5 to promote DRM
That's what I said, but unfortunately they came up with that crazy idea of demonizing a good standard that should be free.
There are times when free software can't beat proprietary software, and if it doesn't adapt, it won't succeed.
There you have the example of Linus Torvalds adding the famous binary blobs to the Linux kernel, if he had not done so, GNU / Linux would still be a very incompatible system with diverse hardware and would continue to be rejected by many people due to these causes.
You are looking at things from a mirror perspective.
Manufacturers are what must adapt and produce what users / developers demand, not the other way around.
What happened to the graphics cards?
Users did not accept what was offered, they preferred to buy Intel graphics, they used wine or an extra partition to play, and in the end the providers are folding their hands and offering better drivers (even if they are proprietary) or releasing documentation / specifications little by little.
So if I start to create a kernel from scratch alone, then manufacturers have to adapt to me just because a so-and-so came up with creating a new independent kernel and he doesn't even plan to trade it
What a way to take things out of context.
Without having to create absurd scenarios, I can give you examples of how manufacturers and suppliers adapt to market demand in the real world.
1. The x64 architecture has been around for a long time, but since until recently people have been able to get hold of computers with more than 3 GB of RAM, manufacturers have to keep instructions for 32 bit in their processors, even developers of operating systems and applications they keep creating 32 and 64 bit versions.
2. Nokia started by selling paper and wooden furniture, having its customers new needs, it sends everything to hell over and over again, now it sells smartphones.
3 ...
Product and service providers adapt to meet the needs of their customers, not the other way around, basic economics.
Even in your absurd example, if you were the only customer of the manufacturer, yes, he would have to adapt to you, because if not, someone else will do it and win the sale.
The main problem is how to distribute the DRM. I would have liked Netflix to suggest giving DRM's as Cuevana-style plugins (now, that site has already gone to hell).
I hope they don't get carried away with DRM, as the FSF and EFF are targeting them so they can harass them.
Cuevana's "plugin" was malware.
Well, thank goodness he used TPB and not Cuevana, but at least, on Netflix, they should put their DRM's in the form of plugins.
Unfortunately, sometimes great sacrifices have to be made to ensure Linux growth. Maybe HTML 5 pre-DRM is the price to pay… .s
Surely many will not agree with me, but if I have to choose between the DRM of HTML5, and Flash or Silverlight, I prefer DRM. Flash and Silverlight are even more nefarious than any attempt to implement DRM.
Making the fat broth or giving in to who has the money or the influence has been the soup of every day with the developers of platforms and free software: it happened with Microsoft, it happens with Google and now it happens with Netflix ... The only statement that perhaps It would be worth doing is that even with Linux, humanity is a majority of crazy morons who just want to see twilight or glee on their PC's, phones, tablets or "smart" TV's.