Will Google Oppose DRM On HTML5 Video?

An anonymous reader let us know that "Mozilla has committed to not implement DRM in Firefox for WebM HTML5 video even though it is theoretically possible. Microsoft has asked Google and the WebM community several other questions that still have not been answered, but this one seems more important: will Google commit to keeping WebM in Chrome DRM-free? Does our community think that is important for the open web and free software?"

Re:DRM is Necessary

[Nemyst]

1) Blu-Ray players will soon shut off people from using component video to play 1080p content, downscaling to 540p. I'd call that "ruining your ability to watch it".
2) Many DRM schemes backfire and give users a lot of trouble (see StarForce for a good example).
3) YouTube videos can be quite easily scraped off the site and downloaded, so Flash doesn't implement a whole lot of DRM either.

There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market.

Furthermore, Mozilla's already said it many times. They're not in it to get the biggest marketshare ever, they're there to push the open web and open source movements. They want standards, they want open content. Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission. I regard Mozilla as a watchdog that tries to keep the web in line with the open source community's values. They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.

Re:Ummm?

[Runaway1956]

Go ahead, hide the download button. I have VLC plugin, and I'll just tell VLC to pipe everything it plays to files on the hard drive. No problemo. Whoops, sorry - you already knew that, but the DRM dummies didn't. I should learn to keep my mouth shut, huh?

Re:H.264

[TheRaven64]

Nope, not quite. VLC and so on are all based in France, or some other country that doesn't accept software patents as valid. The majority of the world can use H.264, it's only people who want to ship products in the USA and a couple of other countries that have a problem. Unfortunately for Google, they are based in California, so they have to respect these patents.

Re:H.264

[93 Escort Wagon]

Google could just PAY the royalty to use MPEG4 between now and 2020 (when it becomes open). They certainly have the money.

People keep forgetting this - Google DOES pay that royalty, and plans on continuing to pay it. They didn't pull h.264 support out of Android (or from YouTube for that matter), and they've indicated they're not going to [webmonkey.com] (see the end note).

So (getting back on topic) given that there's every indication their choice to remove it from Chrome was a pragmatic business decision rather than one driven by philosophical principles, why expect them to oppose DRM if their paying customers want DRM?