EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5 270
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."'
Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:impediments to access? (Score:4, Informative)
That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure there is, the decryption module can only output to some sort of content protected path. Otherwise recording its output would be trivial.
Re:Impediment to interoperability... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that Flash DRM is a joke right?
It requires hardware support. That is why it does not run on non-chromebook ChromeOS installations. It does not run on x86 chromebooks last i checked either. That means this is harder to port not easier.
Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment (Score:4, Informative)
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.
We can thank RMS for this (Score:4, Informative)
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.