Transcript Protected Content in Browsers

Protected
Content in
Browsers
Position Paper
Background
› Current Service Provider strategy to deliver protected
content
– Use multimedia framwork that has support for DRM e.g. Silverlight,
Flash
– Browser plugin that handles both DRM and media playback
– Native Client
› Legacy plugin architectures have poor security and stability
– Major browser vendors are dropping plugin support
– New plugin architectures exist, but are not broadly supported
› Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) provide APIs to control
playback of protected content
– DRM system support is up to browser vendor
Protected Content in Browsers | The Fourth W3C Web and TV Workshop | 2014-03-13 | Page 2
Current Future
Options
› Deploy multi-vendor DRM support and adopt to DRM
choices of browser vendors
› Use native app with DRM support
– Potentially based on HTML 5
› Support only one or a few browsers
Protected Content in Browsers | The Fourth W3C Web and TV Workshop | 2014-03-13 | Page 3
Browser positions
› Chrome
– NPAPI dropped Sep 2014, new plugin PPAPI. Widevine CDM
› IE
– No plugin in future versions, Playready CDM
› Firefox
– User interaction to allow plugins, not official statement on plugin
future
› Safari and Opera
– No official statement
Protected Content in Browsers | The Fourth W3C Web and TV Workshop | 2014-03-13 | Page 4
Statements
› In mid-2014, the blocking UI will become more difficult to
navigate, as a means of discouraging NPAPI use by
developers. With the harsher blocking UI, users will see a
puzzle piece in place of the plug-in and a "Blocked plugin“…
› http://www.chromium.org/developers/npapi-deprecation
Protected Content in Browsers | The Fourth W3C Web and TV Workshop | 2014-03-13 | Page 5
Conclusion
› User experience will suffer because of non-preferred
browser or native application
› Anti-competitive situation because of the nature of DRM
support in different browsers.
› Discussion is invited
Protected Content in Browsers | The Fourth W3C Web and TV Workshop | 2014-03-13 | Page 6