Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Electronic Frontier Foundation Your Rights Online

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5 270

Posted by samzenpus
from the do-not-want dept.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a formal objection to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5, saying that a draft proposal from the W3C could hurt innovation and block access to people around the world. From their press page: '"This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments to interoperability and access for all."'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    No DRM will mean no access for anyone!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Are you mentally challenged?
      • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie@hotmaiLIONl.com minus cat> on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:27AM (#43859241) Homepage

        No, he's quite correct. Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all, they will flat out deny everyone access if it ever were to come to that. If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already. With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins since only the part that decodes and displays the video would be proprietary, it wouldn't need to carry with it all the other features of these plugins along. And who knows? Maybe smaller proprietary binaries would be easier to reverse-engineer?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:45AM (#43859391)

          That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.

          • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie@hotmaiLIONl.com minus cat> on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:51AM (#43859443) Homepage

            That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.

            It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary that's supposed to do quite a lot of things -- animations, window handling, 3D, network protocols and so on -- and that means a lot of used system resources and a larger surface for malicious attacks. A DRM-module, on the other hand, doesn't need to worry about 3D-rendering, window handling, vector graphics or anything such, it only needs to decrypt the data and verify that the surface it's given is acceptable to it. It all comes down to hopefully less resources consumed, higher stability and a lesser surface area for malicious attackers to latch on to. It just seems like a positive step to me, even if it is a small one.

            • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:54AM (#43859485)

              Think about what it takes to do that last part. These cannot be trivial programs. They will have to be essentially the same as those terrible video game DRMs that will not run if you have a debugger installed or if you use third party software to mount ISOs.

              • I know. I still stand by my assertion that it's a lot lighter a binary than either the full-blown Flash - plugin or the Silverlight - one.

                • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:59AM (#43859547)

                  I disagree, what this will lead to very quickly will be videos only playing on UEFI secure boot machines running only closed operating systems. Once that happens the banks and online stores will want similar stuff. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

                  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                    Nothing prevents that from happening now. I see nothing scarier about having the DRM plugin mechanism standardized.
                    • by h4rr4r (612664)

                      Because that will make it easier. Right now it would require a lot of work.

                      If don't see that you do not value freedom and we simply will have to disagree.

                    • Seriously? Right now you run an install program to install silverlight and flash. What prevents them from using TC hardware now? Nothing.
                    • by h4rr4r (612664)

                      My OS does not support TC.
                      Once we go down this path, you will need TC to use all kinds of things on the internet. Make no mistake this will be used to kill FOSS on the consumer side.

                    • I agree that TC is coming. However I don't see HTML 5 DRM standardization as the primary method to propagate it since the capability already exists.

                      The thing that will make it more common is the natural attrition of older hardware. Almost all new hardware has some form of TC built-in. When it reaches a point where content providers are able to keep a significant portion of their subscribers, you'll see TC based DRM being required. Unfortunately our choice of OS has no real bearing on the outcome since the

                    • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Thursday May 30, 2013 @10:23AM (#43861221) Journal

                      What's wrong with you people? How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again? DRM has no value whatsoever. No, there aren't any good uses for DRM. The few examples of "good DRM" I've heard are not DRM, they're just straight encryption, cryptographically secure authentication, digital signing, and the like. DRM is a bad idea that, like some damned zombie, keeps on coming back for another sequel. DRM is an offense to our rights and freedoms, a denial of reality, and an unnatural and harmful restriction upon society. It's mental indoctrination and slavery. That so many people are half convinced that maybe DRM isn't so bad, or though evil is a necessary evil, is disturbing, as it should also be seen for the insult to our intelligence that it is. DRM will never be a complete success unless they can install devices in our very brains to force us to forget that movie we saw last month or that song we heard last year. Should we also standardize a protocol for a DRM/human brain interface while we're thinking about letting it into HTML5?

                      Trusted Computing will never arrive as long as these special interests keep trying to twist it against us, make it into Treacherous Computing. They're still trying to give us bull about how it's actually for us because it's for our own good and the good of society, hoping we're stupid enough to accept this bad logic.

                    • Which part? This: "I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content." Well, I see everything wrong with that. DRM is categorically unacceptable.

                      You think it's okay to have DRM on, say, cable TV? And it's okay to implement this or a similar service on your computer, right down to the DRM? I disagree. Strongly. Either I must give up control of my computer to powers that have demonstrated time and again that they are not to be trusted with such control, or I must set up a sandbox, a totall

                  • by hlavac (914630)
                    Problem with DRM is you have to show the content to legal users. If they can see it, they can copy it...
                    • by h4rr4r (612664)

                      Not very easily, if you have something like secure content path that windows has. Enforce UEFI secure boot as well and you pretty much are left recording the screen with a camera. At that point the folks who download this copy will have playback fail when the same system recognizes the audio without accompanying encrypted data.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Anonymous Coward

                  My concern is that we are making it harder for browser makers for no real benefit. Browser makers had to make a plugin API to accomodate for java applets first, then flash and silverlight. Now they will ALSO have to make that DRM API for the CDM, and the CDM is going to be a fullblown program, running as administrator. How are you going to sand box that?

                  You won't. The CDM will only be installed in closed down devices like tivos and chromebooks, yet the DRM API will need to be implemented and tested for any

            • by Nemyst (1383049) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @09:17AM (#43860315) Homepage
              Wait, because you trust the DRM module designers and developers to do just that? This is the kind of industry that thought it just fine to install a rootkit to stop you from illegally playing music CDs. You're trading a single module, Flash, for potentially many modules from different companies, all of which will be even sloppier than Flash (which is quite a feat, but one I'm sure the media cartels will manage).
        • by Captain Hook (923766) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:47AM (#43859409)
          As you say, nothing says content provider can't use DRM to stream movies, EFF are simply arguing that DRM should have no place in a standard.

          I personally have no problem with that. Open standards should be about ensuring as wide a interoperability as possible and DRM goes directly against that.

          The other thing to note is that the DRM being talked about is not a DRM implementation, it's a common interface for DRM plugins, so we still have lots of different proprietary DRM plugins and we will still be no better off than we are now..
        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:48AM (#43859415)

          No, they would just stick with what we have today.

          HTML5 DRM cannot be implemented by any FOSS. If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.

          So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.

          • If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.

            You do realize that e.g. Flash does run on Linux? It is a binary blob running under a F/OSS platform and still does DRMed content.

            So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.

            Netflix already does work on Chromebooks by way of preliminary HTML5 DRM-support. Porting a single DRM-module across platforms is easier than a full-blown, fat binary that does everything the whole browser can do.

        • by Cenan (1892902) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:59AM (#43859543)

          If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already.

          So what? You act as though the internet needs Big Media to survive, when in fact it is the other way around. If Big Media feels the need to develop and maintain proprietary plugins in order to provide their content, fine with me - it's an added cost to them for no bother to me. Their business model is not viable, and it is now our job to keep it afloat? Why is that exactly? What is it the Big Media corporations provide that is so very unique that we're willing to protect it to this degree?

        • by Xest (935314) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:26AM (#43859787)

          Rubbish. If the movie industries continue to not provide access because of no-DRM then they'll continue to suffer piracy and have physical media and cinema as their only distribution methods instead. Even the music industry eventually figure this out - that DRM was doing more harm than good.

          We don't need DRM, we don't want DRM and if we avoid it and they refuse to publish their content then so be it, someone else will gladly come and take their place because there are many other film studios across the globe other than Hollywood that will gladly rake in $10million instead of the $0million Hollywood opts for because it decided not to publish at all unless it could have $100million.

          DRM is about pushing the rental model and preventing ownership of things you've bought. If I pay for a film I want to be able to keep it and watch it when and where I want, not when and where the music industry says I can.

          You're a fool for playing into their trap and pretending there is any kind of validity to their arguments. There's still no firm evidence that piracy even hurts them so to suggest it's a pragmatic necessity is utterly stupid.

        • by Bob9113 (14996)

          If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already.

          And if we start calling proprietary things that almost everyone is forbidden to implement "standards" then we will be worse of than we are already.

          With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins

          That's it?!? That's all we get for making the term "standards" mean "proprietary thing that you are forbidden to imple

        • Devil we know versus the devil we don't.

          I'll take the first one and *not* corporatize the fundamental construct of the web, thanks.

    • by MartinG (52587)

      Just like it did for music?

  • by blarkon (1712194) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:18AM (#43859161)

    While I understand why they've taken this position, "The Internet" != "WWW". Increasingly content producers are publishing content through app stores because apps provide content creators with a piece of mind that distribution across the DRM free web does not.

    We will get to see the result of the grand experiment of publishing content on the web versus through apps. Content follows the money. If there is more money to be generated distributing content over a DRM free web, that's where it will stay. But if there is more money to be made distributing it through locked down apps on locked down platforms - well there's no reason to think that people won't abandon any technology as quickly as they adopt it if the content that they want to view migrates somewhere else.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:33AM (#43859307) Journal

      The problem is that the "Web" DRM doesn't actually solve the problem of 'content' being moved to nasty proprietary little silos, it just offers a way of embedding your locked-down platform of choice into a web page.

      Because the only thing standardized is a few javascript hooks for interacting with the 'Content Decryption Module'(there is a single, toy, javascript-based CDM; but it fails even lax robustness requirements and is somewhere between a 'hello world' example and red herring), and the CDM is free to do whatever it likes for everything from the decryption step to actually painting the frames on the screen, the CDM doesn't replace the 'un-web' proprietary stack, it is that stack.

      If, by some magic, this proposal actually were magic-interoperable-web-based-DRM, it'd at least have pragmatic virtues going for it; but it isn't. It's as 'web based' as a site that consists of nothing but a java applet inside an Object tag, or a site that wraps a win32 program in an activex control.

    • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:46AM (#43859407) Journal

      Content follows the money.

      Pardon me, but like hell it does.

      A lovely example is Game of Thrones. Apparently the most pirated show in history. So why is it basically impossible to just buy the eposides as they come out?

      Content seems to follow the principle of maximum fear. It seems that they are so afraid that people might pay to download an unencumbered version and then pirate it, they'd rather they can't buy it at all (so they definitely pirate it!).

      I guess perhaps they can't stand the doubt.

      • by rjforster (2130) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:14AM (#43859695) Journal

        I know someone who pays for the channel that shows Game Of Thrones but still downloads it so that he gets to watch the show without adverts.

        • by dbug78 (151961)

          I haven't had HBO since I was a kid, so maybe things have changed, but isn't it commercial-free? Isn't that the whole point of paying the premium for it?

        • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:51AM (#43860051) Journal

          Well that's the really stupid thing. The studios are not only competing with free, they're competing with vastly better as well.

          Compare what I could do if I used the pirate bay:

          * Download a file to watch later
          * Not worry about my crap DSL connection (I live in London, not out in the sticks) causing stuttering, drop outs, etc.
          * Be able to watch it in my living room which has wi-fi blocking walls, preventing the possibility of streaming.
          * Be able to watch it on my big external screen (the laptop came with a VGA adapter, and nothing for the micro HDMI port) so I use analog.
          * Be able to use my favourite media player that has a user interface that I like.
          * Be able to transcode it and stick it on a USB stick, and then play it on my in-law's set top box which seems to be able to play such things. Actually many TVs can now play things directly from USB sticks. This is not a rare feature.
          * Be able to watch it on my phone.
          * Download using a nice client which allows me to be able to set priorities for downloads etc so that the earlier shows download first, and seems to be able to reliably saturate my connection.

          And if I paid for it, then I could do:
          * None of the above.

          The thing is that the current options for paying are essentially worse in just about every measurable way than pirating. It's not just the cost. Actually, I'd happily pay £2 per week to watch an episode of series I follow, but I'd never spend £50 on the 25 episode DVD set. And I'd love to pay and just get a nice AVI or MKV or MP4 (really, do impossible proportioned women really want to date my testicles?) which I can save to my hard disk and then view at my leisure.

      • by citizenr (871508)

        >So why is it basically impossible to just buy the eposides as they come out?

        But it is, Advertisers pay for the content just as it comes out. Your eyeballs are NOT the main clients of HBO, you are a commodity HBO sells to its real clients.

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:04AM (#43859591)

      Content does not follow money.

      I cannot get "Game of Thrones" recent seasons. It simply is not legally available online. Even if I was ok with itunes I could not get it. So people pirate it. Many of them would be happy to pay, I would be thrilled to pay for DRM free versions.

      • Content does not follow money.

        I cannot get "Game of Thrones"...

        Don't confuse short term with long term. The issue with Game of Thrones is due to all kinds of tail wagging the dog problems like the inertia of the cable industry, foreign distribution contracts, etc.

        Here's a more long-term example -- DIVX. [wikipedia.org] DIVX isn't just missing Game of Thrones, it is missing just about every movie and every TV show ever.

    • by Thruen (753567) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:11AM (#43859665)
      I'm excited to see the other half of this experiment, where they publish content on the web without DRM and see how it goes... I don't expect it to ever happen, though. That is exactly what they've been fighting this entire time. Content owners have never liked the idea of distributing content online without any DRM, it's been extremely difficult just getting them to come this far from not wanting to distribute online at all. If they ever do try something outside of tightly controlled distribution services, it will be long after those services are generating enough revenue to make any new experiment look as if it's not worth it. The people in control of the entertainment industry are greedy to a point of stupidity, they are control freaks, and they have a long history of refusing to adapt to new technology. Even supposedly family-friendly Disney creates artificial scarcity by pulling movies from store shelves for years at a time, they love that control. You suggest that if there's money to be made on a DRM-free internet, that's where money will stay. I ask you then, why are they trying to incorporate into the HTML5 standard something which would effectively put DRM on the web before attempting to make any money without it? I believe the answer is that they have no interest in even trying anything they don't believe they can control entirely, it's why new technology has always frightened them.
    • by Xest (935314)

      "Content follows the money."

      Really? So why has the music industry pursued a decade of decline by completely ignoring what customers want?

      The whole reason DRM exists is because the content industries have tried everything but following the money and it's taken technology firms (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Last.fm and so on) to slap them about a bit and drag them and their content towards the money.

      Content certainly wont follow the money by itself.

    • by Warbothong (905464) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @08:45AM (#43859983) Homepage

      While I understand why they've taken this position, "The Internet" != "WWW". Increasingly content producers are publishing content through app stores because apps provide content creators with a piece of mind that distribution across the DRM free web does not.

      We will get to see the result of the grand experiment of publishing content on the web versus through apps. Content follows the money. If there is more money to be generated distributing content over a DRM free web, that's where it will stay. But if there is more money to be made distributing it through locked down apps on locked down platforms - well there's no reason to think that people won't abandon any technology as quickly as they adopt it if the content that they want to view migrates somewhere else.

      That's fine with me, but the major difference is that those who want the DRM should have to pay for it, either by developing and maintaining it or by paying someone to do so. DRM is a Red Queen's race; you have to run as fast as you can just to stay where you are. Universal, Sony, etc. want to stay where they are without running the race, so they're trying ride in a sedan chair carried by browser developers.

  • I don't want to be slave of plugins.
    I don't want to be slave of browsers.
    I don't want anymore to be slave of ECOSYSTEMS making me have three or four platforms just to be able to access content.

    I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

    • optional cross-platform DRM

      LOL optional DRM is simply (mandatory) DRM, you either are one side or the other. I personally think that *software* should never contain any DRM.

      • DRM is always optional. You don't have to buy the product with DRM.

        • by Skapare (16644)

          But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant. or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice ... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?

    • what he said!

      When we rented videos from Blockbuster did we bitch and moan about having to return it?

      One of the main gripes about DRM is lack of transferability or consistency due to everyone using their own incompatible DSM standards. Standardising on this should mean someone with a Netflix account will get to stream videos on not just Windows (hopefully without Silverlight) but also their standards compliant Linux desktop, Mac and possibly phone and tablet all via the browser.

      If the DSM is too invasive, th

      • Standardising on this should mean someone with a Netflix account will get to stream videos on not just Windows (hopefully without Silverlight) but also their standards compliant Linux desktop, Mac and possibly phone and tablet all via the browser.

        It will not mean that. At all.

        You might want to actually get the details about what you're speaking out in favor of, before you actually put your support behind it.

        This is anything but unified DRM.

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:40AM (#43859357) Journal

        This standard doesn't standardize the DRM, it just standardizes the interface for interacting with the DRM module...

        The 'Content Decryption Module' itself is not part of the standard, and there are no requirements as to it being cross platform, consistent, transferable, or anything else except that it provide a few javascript interfaces to twiddle. That's it.

        It's "Standardized" in the sense that Silverlight, Flash, and Java are "standardized" because they can all be embedded with the 'object' tag...

      • by thaylin (555395)
        Not even remotely the same. Returning videos to blockbuster is not even remotely the same as DRM, in fact the reverse is true, as while it was in your possession you could copy it.
    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:36AM (#43859327)

      I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

      That would be fine if that was being proposed. However, what is being proposed is that HTML have a tag that calls something that will have to be written for each platform (and thus will only be written for those platforms the content producers consider worth their while to support) in order to decrypt video that is sent with DRM. Of course that thing that is called by the tag (it is no longer called a plugin, but it looks just like one except that it is called from a different place in the code) will be different for every content provider (unless we are lucky and they all decide to use a third party DRM module. Which is unlikely, since most of the content providers are likely to write their own DRM module which they will try to sell to everyone else).

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:36AM (#43859335) Journal

      I don't want to be slave of plugins.

      I don't want to be slave of browsers.

      I don't want anymore to be slave of ECOSYSTEMS making me have three or four platforms just to be able to access content.

      I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

      This proposal doesn't free you from plugins, or provide 'cross-platform DRM'. It just renames 'plugins' to 'content decryption modules' and provides absolutely no requirement as to how cross platform they are or aren't(indeed, they explicitly state 'CDM may use or defer to platform capabilities' and may handle all steps from decryption to actually drawing on the display).

    • by Skapare (16644)

      I prefer to have browsers that are NOT made by corporations. Browser developers will have to choose between making a browser without DRM and not be considered HTML5 compliant, and paying tens of thousands of dollars to corporations just to get a license key to decode the DRM. Putting DRM is HTML5 as a standard locks out all but corporate made browsers. It also locks out full browser source code that you can compile for yourself and end up with a fully standards compliant browser.

      Let corporations come up

  • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:26AM (#43859227) Journal

    Yeah, because the current scheme of using proprietary playback plugins that have their own set of security flaws and performance issues, if they exist at all for your platform of choice, isn't an impediment to interoperability at all.

    Hollywood isn't going to go DRM free (yet). DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today. These things must change over time. See: all the stores now selling DRM free music, which would have never happened if the stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hollywood isn't going to go DRM free (yet). DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today. These things must change over time.

      What Hollywood is or isn't going to do should be largely irrelevant to the discussion. The web is not their domain.

    • Did that Happen!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tuppe666 (904118) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:35AM (#43859311)

      DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today...stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat.

      I am confident that DRM should not be a standard, and the argument that DRM being dropped will happen because companies will get *comfortable*; They don't they would have you electronically chipped if they could get away with it. The reason why DRM was dropped was because customers simply were not happy with it.

      • by dkf (304284)

        I am confident that DRM should not be a standard

        Then you can clearly explain why there should not be a standard way to manage the discovery of media type variants handled and to allow the codec and the service provider to communicate securely. While I would agree that there should not be a particular type of DRM-enabled codec mandated, there ought at least to be an official mechanism for the presence of optional software plugin modules capable of doing a particular task (e.g., video playback) and to determine that of the ones that are available, all, som

    • Yeah, because the current scheme ... isn't an impediment to interoperability at all.

      Careful of two wrongs make a right [nizkor.org].

      which would have never happened if the stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat

      Yet we've already been through all this, know that DRM-free distribution is the most successful sales model, and nearly all the movie companies own record companies and know this already. So it's not the same situation - this time

      • Careful of two wrongs make a right.

        But there is a lesser of two evils. Given that DRM will happen regardless, making things a bit more standardized and easier for all is better than leaving it more fragmented and harder for all.

    • First you complain that:

      using proprietary playback plugins that have their own set of security flaws and performance issues, if they exist at all for your platform of choice,

      But then you go and say:

      DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today.

      Seriously, can you read TFA, or at least *some* of the comments in any of the previous thrads?

      The DRM standard precisely requires a proprietary, unspecified non standard CDM with every flaw you already listed.

      The ONLY thing that the "standard"

      • The ONLY thing that the "standard" offers is a vague air of legitimacy.

        And a vastly reduced attack surface, since there won't be a full-scale run-time, just a simple decrypting module.

        • And a vastly reduced attack surface, since there won't be a full-scale run-time, just a simple decrypting module.

          Oh yeah, like BD+ which contains an entire VM and runtime so it... wait what was that about a reduced attack surface?

          Basically, the CDM is an interface to a binary module. That can contain anything. Therefore any claims you make about the contents of that module are entirely unjustified.

          • Then BD+ is poorly designed. There's no reason you can't have a CDM system that isn't isolated and sandboxed.
    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @07:51AM (#43859453)

      This changes nothing. They are simply renaming plugins to CDMs. Those will still be only available for limited platforms and each store/site will have its own.

  • W3C should not be including anything like DRM. They should remember that is is HyperText Markup Language. All they need to define is the usage of the 'a' tag, and left some IETF working group define the transport type for video etc. rather than using HyperText Transfer Protocol.

    • by Cenan (1892902)

      This is not about the DRM or the protection of their content, this is about the massive victory it is to have W3C buckle and accept the bleak world view that Big Media pushes: "everyone is a thief unless we preemptively shackle them". Never mind that the HTML standard has nothing to do with their content, nor is it the right place to define what happens to their content; it is all about winning the argument to be able to build on it further.

  • by macbeth66 (204889) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @11:09AM (#43861815)

    This is being done at the behest of the Entertainment Industry. What happens with the next industry that wants something added to a standard? Where does it end? I have no problem with Netflix, or some other entity, saying that "if you want to use our fee-based service you must use this." But I don't want these add-ons polluting a standard. This is what we have plug-ins for. If you don't like the plug-in, don't use it and don't bitch about not getting a fee-based service.

  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Thursday May 30, 2013 @11:40AM (#43862251) Homepage

    This is great work by EFF.

    But I get the feeling that if Stallman hadn't kicked up such a stink about this, other organisations wouldn't be jumping in to help now.

    If EFF's objection is successful, some people will look back afterward and say that RMS's petition and public denouncements achieved nothing and only the later campaigns by others were useful, but they'll be missing the point that RMS is the one that whips those other groups out of inaction. He knows he usually can't win battles on his own, and he knows how to highlight a cause and set an example so that he isn't left on his own.

    So thanks, EFF, and thanks, Richard.

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.

Working...