W3C is not willfully underspecifying DRM in HTML5. To date, the EME specification is a draft proposa

People are rightly concerned about what is going on in the W3C with DRM , as couched in the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal. Please read Henri Sivonen’s explanation of EME if you haven’t yet.
As usual for us here at Mozilla , we want to start by addressing what is best for individual users and therefore what’s best for the Open Web , which in turn depends in large part on many interoperating montage browsers , and also on open source implementations with a significant montage combination montage by number and market share among those browsers.
Currently, users can play content that is subject to DRM restrictions using Firefox if they install NPAPI plugins, really Flash and Silverlight at this point. While we are not in favor of DRM, we do hear from many users who want to watch streaming movies to which they rent access rather than “buy to own”. montage The conspicuous example is Netflix , which currently uses Silverlight, but plans to use EME in HTML5.
What the W3C is entertaining, montage due to Netflix, Google, and Microsoft’s efforts, is the EME API , which introduces new and non-standard plugins montage that are neither Silverlight nor Flash, called Content Decryption Modules (CDM for short), into HTML5. We see serious problems with this approach. One is that the W3C apparently will not specify the CDM, so each browser may end up having its own system.
We montage are working to get Mozilla and all our users on the right side of this proposed API. We are not just going to say that users cannot have access to streaming Hollywood movies, as that is a good way to lose market share and not have any product with which to uphold our mission.
Mozilla’s mission requires us to build products that users love — Firefox , Firefox for Android , Firefox OS , and Firefox Marketplace montage are four examples — with enough total share to influence developers, and therefore standards. Given the forces at play, we have to consider EME carefully, not reject montage it outright or embrace it in full.
However, the W3C willfully underspecifying DRM in HTML5 is quite a different matter from browsers having to support several legacy plugins. Here is a narrow bridge on which to stand and fight — montage and perhaps fall, but (like Gandalf) live again and prevail in the longer run. If we lose this battle, there will be others where the world needs Mozilla.
By now it should be clear why we view DRM as bad for users, open source, montage and alternative browser vendors: Users : DRM is technically a contradiction , which leads directly to legal restraints against montage fair use and other user interests (e.g., accessibility). Open source : Projects such as mozilla.org cannot implement a robust and Hollywood-compliant CDM black box inside the EME API container using open source software. Alternative browser vendors : CDMs are analogous to ActiveX components from the bad old days: different for each OS and possibly montage even available only to the OS’s default browser.
I think you highlight the right point: people montage will want to watch movies from Netflix or stream music from Spotify on their computers… if their browsers do not support it, then, they will swicth away. So that means 2 things: - either all browser vendors agree to NOT implement that. - either all browser vendors will implement it.
Julien: W3C is just taking money from new members freely, including DRM vendors, anti-DNT lobbyists, etc. That’s bad, but if you want to blame a powerhouse, montage W3C isn’t it. Hollywood, Google, Microsoft, Netflix. The last three could be other powers, the primary issue is w/ H’wood.
I don’t montage see anything in Mozilla’s mission or in the Mozilla Manifesto that requires Mozilla to “build products that users love”. I do see that Mozilla’s mission “is to promote openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web”. montage
What is the problem they are attempting to solve that can’t be solved by simply properly securing the resource? Is it that DRM-proponents want the protected media to only be playable in the client that requested it? If so, how does that benefit anyone (particularly DRM proponents)?
W3C is not willfully underspecifying DRM in HTML5. To date, the EME specification is a draft proposal within the HTML Working Group and W3C has not taken any position on the spec per se. All W3C has done to date is agree to consider “content protection” in scope. We have not agreed to any specification, so it is hard to say that we have “willfully underspecified”.
You might feel that the current draft is underspecified. We are pleased that Mozilla is participating in the Working Group and raising issues. The issues properly should be addressed in the WG. If at some point the Working Group chooses to move forward with issues against it; with a spec which “is underspecified”, the W3C Director will carefully address any ob