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:impediments to access? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scared of evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Impediment to interoperability... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:0, Insightful)
Did that Happen!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:impediments to access? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nice symbolic gesture, but symbolic is all it is. The major studios will never allow streaming services live Netflix to stream their content without DRM, so whether it's built into HTML5 or not, DRM *will* be added. They'll just do it with a 3rd party app. It's either that or kiss any mainstream content goodbye.
It was a nice symbolic guesture of Amazon to offer DRM free MP3s, but the RIAA and Apple will never allow their content to be available DRM free and Amazon will have nothing to sell... oh wait.
I see a lot of cowards in this thread and it surprises me. Do the smart thing and say, "No". Which entertainment group recently suggested they should be able to remotely disable your machine for suspected piracy. I forget... had something to do with media... movies maybe...
But you know, let's give them a standard "plugin" interface. Instead of "bloated Flash" I hope you all enjoy the 50 separate implementations of DRM you get, with variable stability and attack vectors.
Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Objection to the formal objection. (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is: they won't.
Any serious DRM will have to rely on OS level restrictions (for example Protected Media Path).
There are serious incentives for a content publisher to implement DRM this way, relying on obfusciated and OS specific modules, which will effectively destroy interoperability.
On the other hand, there is little point in maintaining a workable version of your EME decryption module for each and every platform / browser, as this will only increase development costs.
Also: the more versions of DRM you have to maintain, the greater the chance a glitch will be exploited to break the DRM.
I expect the following message to pop up everywhere on the web: "You must use browser X on OS Y to view this content".
Re:impediments to access? (Score:4, Insightful)
And they achieved this without DRM as a part of the standards.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 platform the browser supports. It's stupid to demand everybody to work extra to support an API that it's only going to be useful in unstandard, proprietary systems.
It's not only stupid, it's an asshole move, hollywood simply is asking browser vendors to bend over backwards for the privilege of helping them avoid work.
Re:impediments to access? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.