So what's so good about cooking things into the browser? Is it a self goal? Regular issues with plugins are security risks and lack of trust. DRM inside the browser doesn't help it and doesn't solve it. I'd say the opposite, it becomes much harder to separate so it only increases the risk.
So the author can cheer for the abstract benefit of moving plugins in the browser, but actual benefit isn't explained, since it's actually not a benefit at all.
Hi there, I wrote this blog post, and I can assure you, as someone that works in the video industry EME is definitely something to dream about. DRM is absolutely, 100% a necessity if you want to deal with any content coming from anyone from whom you actually want their content.
I'm not a fan of DRM, but it's simply a reality of the industry. It's weird, but most content doesn't have the same liberal license as Big Buck Bunny :)
> So what's so good about cooking things into the browser?
Remember RealPlayer? Windows Media Player? Quicktime? DivX? Flash? You don't see the benefit in getting to deal with these things less as a developer and, more importantly, a user?
> You don't see the benefit in getting to deal with these things less as a developer and, more importantly, a user?
As a user you deal with trusting the code you run. I don't trust running any DRM blobs on my system. And it's irrelevant for Linux users anyway, since even if Firefox would for example enable EME, there is no Adobe DRM blob for Linux to work with it so the whole discussion doesn't even start there.
> DRM is absolutely, 100% a necessity if you want to deal with any content coming from anyone from whom you actually want their content.
No, thanks. They need the Web more than the Web needs them. So I'll use their services when they'll start treating users decently and not like criminals by default, shoving unethical preemptive policing in everyone's throat. I personally prefer to vote with my wallet, that's why I'm not dreaming about any DRMed services and clutches they need to function - I don't use them. So definitely EME isn't something that interests me in the least.
I either use DRM-free services like GOG, or buy video on disks which nominally has no DRM (i.e. DRM there is obsolete, thanks to libdvdcss and the like).
First of all, how in the world did we end up down the rabbit hole of the EME holy war? The EME comment was a tiny reference that ultimately had nothing to do with the point of the blog post...
You can do whatever you'd like with your wallet, but you live in a very different reality from most people. There's a reason why GOG can offer "Minecraft: The Story of Mojang" without DRM.
Again, this conversation has nothing to do with the actual blog post in question other than rabbling about something you disagree with. I disagree with you that EME is Satan's binary blob, but this is entirely irrelevant.
I'm not really criticizing the rest of the post. Just the EME part of it. And yes, that's my personal choice since I oppose DRM on many grounds (it's unethical, impractical, slows down the progress of technology and so on). And if we as users don't vote with our wallets, how else do you think this can be improved? Whether it's different reality or not, each one has personal responsibility for supporting or not supporting services which proliferate DRM.
In gaming sense GOG already broke quite a number of walls even with publishers who were usually viewed as thick skulled DRM proponents. Film industry however is one of the worst when it comes to this (it's older than the gaming industry in general so more legacy garbage and practices are attached).
So the author can cheer for the abstract benefit of moving plugins in the browser, but actual benefit isn't explained, since it's actually not a benefit at all.