Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VP9 Codec Now Enabled By Default In Chrome

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    That won't really make it a lick better for the alternative operating systems, (and to make this clear, I'm a full-time Linux and Haiku user), meanwhile standarizing HTML5 video atleast means 'we' (alternative OS users) won't need proprietary plugins for non-DRM laden video content, which is what is really the important thing for me.
    You're mistaken. EME will not make DRM platform-independent. You will still need plugins, it's just that they will be loaded on your browser on the fly from the DRM'ed webpages. These plugins will still be 100% proprietary and closed, you will have no idea what they do on your computer.

    Which would just dwindle should they not support DRM and allow it's users to access commercial content sites
    NO, because this thing wouldn't even become a standard without Google's cooperation. Websites wouldn't start using it if only Microsoft browsers supported it - not at this day and age, we're not in the 90s anymore.

    Again the problem is with Hollywood's non-wavering demands on DRM, I guess the 'best' thing you could do to get your point across if you can't live without the content is to pirate it (not that it's likely they'll get the message anyway, their response is probably STRONGER DRM!).
    Yeah. And Google is now officially part of that problem.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      No, there's another way - forget DRM. Let the content producers die if they're unable to adapt to the future, we don't have to pander to them.
      LOL. You've nicely ignored everything I've said, and it's clear this conversation is going nowhere. Anyway... VP9 looks cool, doesn't it?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        LOL. You've nicely ignored everything I've said,
        No, it actually looks like you're ignoring everything I've said. Oh well

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          You're mistaken. EME will not make DRM platform-independent.
          I never said that it would make DRM platform-independant, I stated that we won't need plugins for 'non-DRM' content (read what you quoted), particularly if HTML5 standarizes around a royalty free open codec like VP9, which can be shipped in any browser, foss product, alternative operating system etc, free of charge.

          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          Websites wouldn't start using it if only Microsoft browsers supported it - not at this day and age, we're not in the 90s anymore.
          Websites would then just use the existing proprietary plugins to deliver DRM content, which would then also be used to deliver non-DRM laden content, thus keeping us in the proprietary plugin (flash, hello!) dark ages even for content which doesn't use DRM.

          So I see no practical win in your scenario. As it is now, atleast with a HTML5 video standard we can get non-DRM encumbered online video on ALL platforms without the need of proprietary plugins like flash being 'de facto' standards for online video distribution.

          Yes, DRM content will require proprietary plugins, as always, and it will only be supported on mainstream systems which Hollywood see fit to target, as always. Nothing new here, and certainly nothing which would have changed if W3C would have refused DRM mechanisms in the HTML5 standard.

          Again, what is instead good with HTML5 is that a proprietary plugin won't be needed to access non-DRM encumbered video anymore. That's what we (as alternate OS users) gain, getting access to Hollywood content (which always uses DRM) was never on the table to begin with.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
            I never said that it would make DRM platform-independant, I stated that we won't need plugins for 'non-DRM' content (read what you quoted), particularly if HTML5 standarizes around a royalty free open codec like VP9, which can be shipped in any browser, foss product, alternative operating system etc, free of charge.
            Sorry, too much text, skimming through, my bad.

            HTML5-video is obviously a good thing, but we don't need EME for that to happen. Non-DRM content can be shown as HTML5-video without it. It already is, in many places. I don't see how EME has any effect on non-DRM content? All it will do is make things worse.

            Websites would then just use the existing proprietary plugins to deliver DRM content, which would then also be used to deliver non-DRM laden content, thus keeping us in the proprietary plugin (flash, hello!) dark ages even for content which doesn't use DRM.
            Why do you think that would be any better with EME?

            So I see no practical win in your scenario. As it is now, atleast with a HTML5 video standard we can get non-DRM encumbered online video on ALL platforms without the need of proprietary plugins like flash being 'de facto' standards for online video distribution.
            What practical win do you see with EME? Why do you think it would make content producers more likely to offer non-DRM content via HTML5? EME doesn't suddenly remove flash from existence, it only gives websites a way to insert black box plugins in your browser that you have no way of controlling, no way of auditing or figuring out what they really do. Websites that offer DRM content will still use proprietary plugins to stream video, only these plugins will be loaded to your browser on the fly. Why do you think they won't just save time and use those same plugins to show non-DRM content as well? If EME becomes a standard, why wouldn't they?

            Yes, DRM content will require proprietary plugins, as always, and it will only be supported on mainstream systems which Hollywood see fit to target, as always. Nothing new here, and certainly nothing which would have changed if W3C would have refused DRM mechanisms in the HTML5 standard.
            But at least we wouldn't have black box plugins in our browsers.

            Again, what is instead good with HTML5 is that a proprietary plugin won't be needed to access non-DRM encumbered video anymore. That's what we (as alternate OS users) gain, getting access to Hollywood content (which always uses DRM) was never on the table to begin with.
            I've never had any problem with HTML5, I think HTML5 is great. EME is not however, it threatens the security and freedom of the entire internet. It threatens to divide the internet to platform-dependent portions. More than it already has been...

            Right now, flash content at least can be viewed on Linux. You can bet that any EME plugin will not run on any OS that doesn't implement some form of draconian "trusted computing" to prevent screen recordings and such. I'm sure Canonical will be happy to jump through that hoop, though...

            Comment


            • #51
              VP9 is now enabled by default in Chrome dev channel. Lots of Youtube videos are already using it.
              Last edited by My8th; 06-18-2013, 11:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                I don't see how EME has any effect on non-DRM content? All it will do is make things worse.
                Here is where we are of different opinion, I don't see how EME makes things worse, you seem to assume that EME as part of the HTML5 standard will suddenly mean all video media becomes DRM encumbered. Why?

                As I already stated, Google could have made all their Youtube video content DRM encumbered ages ago with the flash plugin had they so wished, why would they suddenly do so now because of EME?

                Content which already used DRM (through flash, silverlight etc) will continue doing so, nothing gained or lost here.

                However, what we do gain is a standard way of serving non-DRM encumbered video which can be supported across all platforms. This is what I care about, whether or not commercial DRM laden content is distributed using separately installed plugins like flash, or if they are installed through a extension mechanism in the HTML5 standard really doesn't matter to me.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Right now, flash content at least can be viewed on Linux. You can bet that any EME plugin will not run on any OS that doesn't implement some form of draconian "trusted computing" to prevent screen recordings and such.
                Luckily there are ways around that, Netflix will never support Linux officially for the reasons you stated, but AFAIK you can get Netflix going through both Wine and of course, a VM. Flash will be deprecated either way, so clinging to that solution because it still has (thanks to Google these days, as Adobe has dropped Linux) native support seem futile.

                Commercial content will require DRM in order for it to be distributed, Hollywood won't have it any other way. If you want to consume that content you will have to bend to their will (or pirate it), again, in practice I don't see how it really matters if it's through externally installed plugins like flash, silverlight, or through an EME mechanism in the HTML5 spec.

                And yes, Linux and other open systems will likely never get the kind of official support from Hollywood content providers as those systems where it's easier to lock the content pipeline (not that it has ever worked sofar, but you can bet they will keep trying...). It's just something we will have to live with.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Here is where we are of different opinion, I don't see how EME makes things worse, you seem to assume that EME as part of the HTML5 standard will suddenly mean all video media becomes DRM encumbered. Why?
                  Not everything, but the clueless majority. IIRC it was RMS that said it (or maybe someone on this site?), if DRM becomes a part of the standard, it will become a tickbox in the frameworks.

                  Now, if Joe NewSiteOwner is setting up a new site, you think he won't tick the box that says "protect my videos"? It might even be ticked by default. Only those explicitly aware and against DRM will not tick it, resulting in a lot of videos that previously wouldn't have been DRMd becoming so.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    Not everything, but the clueless majority. IIRC it was RMS that said it (or maybe someone on this site?), if DRM becomes a part of the standard, it will become a tickbox in the frameworks.

                    Now, if Joe NewSiteOwner is setting up a new site, you think he won't tick the box that says "protect my videos"? It might even be ticked by default. Only those explicitly aware and against DRM will not tick it, resulting in a lot of videos that previously wouldn't have been DRMd becoming so.
                    Joe will probably have to choose between ten DRM schemes, of whom not a single one covers all platforms while most of them will still be hackable.
                    So if Joe would have used DRMed videos in the flash era, he probably won't use DRM when EME becomes the norm.
                    Personal speculation warnings apply on that obviously.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      It's likely there will be a Windows one from MS, with all Windows browsers hooking up to it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X