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