There will be absolutely no change. All major browsers already implement EME (this includes Edge, IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and a bunch of minor ones).
I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary.
There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.
People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access.
I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient.
The option of there being no DRM was realistically never on the table, as much as people would've liked it to be.
The option of there being no DRM was realistically never on the table, as much as people would've liked it to be.
Way back in the 2000s when HDTV was getting off the ground, the networks demanded that all recording devices support a "broadcast flag" that would allow them to prevent recording. CBS in particular said that unless this was legally mandated, they would refuse to broadcast in HD. Instead we called their bluff, and they backed down because it turns out they don't hate money: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/dtv-era-no-broadcast
Sure, media companies would prefer a world where everything is DRMed and all computing devices are locked down, and if we hand that to them on a silver platter they'll take it. But I don't believe for a second that they can't survive without it.
I wouldn't say that. If it between having no DRM and having no web presence, I think broadcasters would pick no DRM. DRM really doesn't do very much to protect against piracy. It's just a way for C-level execs to show they are doing something to protect their IP. It's a kind of security theater.
I think it's foolish to think that. Right now, if you wanted to share a video from HBO to your friend (assuming you couldn't give your account), what are your options. There's no easy way for you to just give that content to your friend. You'd have to link them to a third-party site hosting the content, which is not the same thing.
With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.
The recording industry was very hardline with DRM, until one day Apple decided they won't support DRM anymore in the iTunes Store. Thus no music is purchased with DRM from any of the major e-tailers.
If the choice is no DRM or literally not making any money on the Internet, content creators will choose no DRM every time. Technologists have all the leverage here. If the web simply didn't support DRM, do you think Netflix, Hulu, and NBCUniversal would pack their bags and lose on billions of dollars because of some theoretical increases in piracy? Of course not. They'd just offer their content with no DRM.
There are many file sharing, illicit streaming and torrent websites that have the entire HBO catalog available. They are pretty easy to find with simple Google searches. Piracy is not esoteric, it's pervasive even today. There is absolutely no technical obstacle to watching any HBO or major studio's content online for free. And that's arguably a lot easier then figuring out how to copy a huge file for non-technical users. DRM can't have any major effect here, people who want to pirate will pirate, DRM be damned.
The only thing DRM does is introduce barriers to legitimate interoperability and innovation. You get situations like "does this operating system or device support Netflix?" which is unheard if the web was truly an open system.
> The recording industry was very hardline with DRM, until one day Apple decided they won't support DRM anymore in the iTunes Store. Thus no music is purchased with DRM from any of the major e-tailers.
This is not comparable in my opinion. Music was bought, downloaded, stored locally and used on countless devices - from your living room setup, your NAS and media center, to portable players or your car. It made no sense to restrict that kind of content to specific software like iTunes.
A Netflix stream doesnt face the same problems. Compatibility isn't an issue here. Most consumers will never run into problems with Netflix' DRM.
That said, of course if it was possible to buy and download movies for permanent offline viewing, similar to music purchases, it would be absolutely necessary to provide that content DRM-free.
I'm not talking about temporary offline access to Netflix movies or buying/renting a movie via iTunes.
I meant purchasing a real video file that I can put on my NAS and view in a player of my choice. Similar to music. I'm not aware of any video services that offers that.
Why, precisely, do you think you can't play the video file in a player of your choice? That is literally what DRM is - technical restrictions against using content you have purchased in a manner you desire. They provide the file in an encrypted format that only their own player can decrypt.
When iTunes used DRM for music, only Apple's devices could play music you bought from iTunes, too.
I'm aware of that and have been criticizing the movie industry's requirement to ship content with DRM for a long time, particularly as an avid and frequent buyer of DRM-free, lossless music.
However you're right - the iTunes purchasing example shouldn't have been part of my previous response.
On the other hand I think DRM is fine, if not a necessity, for a subscription service like Netflix. It is basically renting content and my expectations towards these services are very different from a store that offers purchasing, which should absolutely be a DRM-free experience. The fact that it's not is exactly the reason why I don't buy films on those platforms, unlike music, which is available countless large and niche stores.
> I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient.
So with EME vendors can still do this: "hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient"
EME just gives a basic API and a way to get this DRM stuff into the browser. This doesn't do what you think it does.
I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary.
There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.