Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards 351
jrepin writes "There's a new front in the battle against digital restrictions management (DRM)technologies. These technologies, which supposedly exist to enforce copyright, have never done anything to get creative people paid. Instead, by design or by accident, their real effect is to interfere with innovation, fair use, competition, interoperability, and our right to own things. That's why we were appalled to learn that there is a proposal currently before the World Wide Web Consortium's HTML5 Working Group to build DRM into the next generation of core Web standards. The proposal is called Encrypted Media Extensions, or EME. Its adoption would be a calamitous development, and must be stopped."
Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not going to knock DRM off the web.
So why not put in a way for it to be done in a standard fashion?
Putting the ability to serve DRM content into HTML is not going to close the web.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
If everyone uses a different standard it slows the spread of DRM and makes it more difficult for those who wish to use it.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we just make an IE/Firefox/Opera/Chrome add-on and be done with adding the DRM? If people want it they can install it themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to ensure that is for them to either distribute it themselves or to sell it through one of the less-evil marketplaces (for instance Magnatune comes to mind). I personally prefer the former, since I like the warm fuzzy I get from the feeling that I am paying the artist directly, but I completely understand if they can't be bother
Re: (Score:3)
No-one really wants DRM except for some of the bigger and nastier corporations. And as TFS mentioned, it does nothing to make sure the artists get paid for their work.
The best way to ensure that is for them to either distribute it themselves or to sell it through one of the less-evil marketplaces (for instance Magnatune comes to mind). I personally prefer the former, since I like the warm fuzzy I get from the feeling that I am paying the artist directly, but I completely understand if they can't be bothered with the learning curve involved.
I know that is the overwelming perspective you see on slashdot, but believe me there are plenty of people who want DRM who are not just big nasty corporations. Some people (myself included) see no problem with a technology that prevents unauthorised viewing, use or copying of something provided it does not interfere with legitimate users in any way.
If the DRM on DVD's let me watch a movie I had purchased in any country but simply stopped me creating copies for other people I would have no issues with it. Un
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
In no way do I support the idea of DRM in the HTML5 standard.
But... There is an upside to having everyone standardize on one form of DRM -- once it is cracked it is cracked for everything
I don't think that comes anywhere near balancing out the societal costs of ubiquitous DRM, but it ain't completely bad.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem to exclude open source software from essential web standards though, which is clearly bad. You can't implement a secure rendering path in open source software, can't hide secure decryption keys in it (even commercial BluRay players find that hard).
It's bad enough that we have to deal with Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can implement SSL and code-signing with opensource, you can implement DRM as well.
You're probably thinking along the lines of having some key used to establish trust being baked into some binaries (and probably hidden using some sort of obfuscation). Sure, that approach gets defeated by revealing source -- but that approach isn't a fundamental necessity of DRM schemes (even though most of them do currently go that route).
People are thinking of DRM in terms of music and videos. Time to think a bit out
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Informative)
I am afraid you are confused.
SSL and safely storing bank documents are jobs for encryption and this works very well. Basically you send a lockable chest to your bank but retain the key, they put your documents into it, close the lock, and send it back. Ensuring that only your key can open it. This is absolutely vital to modern society, but isn't a type of DRM.
DRM usually requires encryption, but also something else. The content producers send their content in a locked box and then try and send the key to your computer in a way where the computer can use it open the box and play back the content but you can't use it to open the box and take the content out. This is obviously logically impossible, which is why you are always hearing of DRM schemes being broken just to watch a film (conversely if you could break a modern encryption system you could literally steal all the money in every bank in the world).
So logically you can't actually implement DRM in closed source software, but with sufficient obfuscation you can get close (Intel literally burns some of the key into a special chip on your motherboard which makes finding it extremely hard). If you are open about what you code is and dose, that includes telling people where you hare trying to hide the key, making the game of hide and seek a bit shorter.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
That is precisely the problem. You could require that the doctor can only see your medical records in special bunker under the Pentagon, after he has submitted to a full cavity search and provided 20 forms of ID. It doesn't have any bearing on whether the next day he phones up his friendly drugs rep. to say he has an interesting new case. If you share information with someone it have to TRUST them to use it wisely, the is no technology that will help with that.
Sending records securely over the public Internet is a solved problem and most people manage to do this every day. Storing records securely is also solved, though this is less uniformly applied. Trying to give people information (digital or otherwise) and then controlling precisely what they do with that information is quite simply impossible.
No open source. +1 (Score:3)
+1 to the open source part. The code may be opn source, but the builds need trusted clients you cannot put in the public domain.
That is my main objection. Only trusted (big) players will get the decryption keys. And DRM has the feature is starts to spread. It starts with dycrypting the stream, then the renderer needs to be trusted. Next the HDCP link to the screeen, and if there was an option to encrypt the screen to eyes link, someone will build it.
Open sourcing, and freely building, any of the components
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just mention the OOXML clusterfuck, and refrain from commenting on "stupidity" and "glass houses."
Re: (Score:3)
Standardization is good, even when standards come from Microsoft
Not when the standards are incomplete, and the missing parts are kept locked up, like what happened with OOXML. Then you get "standards" without interoperability, which removes every benefit of the standard for everyone else while giving the crafter undue influence because of it.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. We already have proof of it. In the form of flash video with DRM, and silverlight video, with DRM. Both were extremely popular, and everyone had Flash and Silverlight installed so they could watch their DRM'd videos.
Now, is this a better outcome than having it as a standardized system? Consider all the flash vulnerabilities and silverlight vulnerabilities - everyone had to have them installed after all.
And no, your opinion on DRM is not going to matter - if people provide useful content DRM'd like this, people will just install whatever.
And frankly - what really keeps someone from taking Firefox and modifying the EME handler to instead of playing it in a video box, dumping the unencrypted content to a hard drive? Putting them in the HTML spec means the browser handles it, and honestly, I trust the browser vendors more than Flash or Silverlight. At least the browser gives you control.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the VGA cable or the audio output is always there to capture. This is a battle against windmills.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who wants to use DRM in vids already does, using flash. Its not "do we have DRM or not", its "will it be standard, or will there be 50 implementations?"
It also ignores the naievity of thinking "if we dont create a standard way to do something that people want to do, maybe theyll stop wanting to do it." You cant put the cat back in the bag simply by pretending the cat doesnt exist...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this doesn't standardise DRM in any way, it just provides a hook in HTML5 for "content providers" (or whoever else) to insert whatever unspecified DRM schemes they want.
Standardized DRM doesn't mean everyone will use it (Score:2)
Administering DRM is a hassle for the provider as well as the user. Companies aren't going to throw on DRM just for the heck of it.
Other content simply won't be provided on the web without DRM. It'll either come through your browser, a browser extension or a separate app. Adding DRM to the standard will give the best possible situation for this too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately DRM is here to stay though. Putting our hands over our ears and yelling 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU' over and over won't make it go away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They should release free work, get a following, and then get their next project funded beforehand from this following. Donations also welcome from people who enjoy the result. Problem solved.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
People who want closed communication channels can already build them, and the onus is on them to specifiy and maintain them outside the open web.
EME will not give "people that prefer to pay for exclusive non-corporate art a standard way to get that", because it doesn't specify a real encryption method. It's just a standard hook allowing portions of web pages to be decrypted by non-standard binary plugins. In fact, besides Google and Apple, it's being proposed by Adobe. They don't want us to get rid of flash, they want, respectively, one more reason to put "works only with Chrome" banners, a way to put the lockdown of flash into iPhones without having to implement the whole plugin, and a way to keep selling binary plugins without having the burden of having to maintain a presentation layer that with the advent of HTML5 has become less attractive.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What free market are you talking about? DRM is not a technical concept, it is a legal one thus has more to do to politics than to market.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
So "the last thing" we want is to let poor people have access to culture and education?? Even if it does not cost anyone a penny to just give it away since they were not going buy it anyways? Yes, lock them in cages and set up overseers with whips to make the lazy bastards work! And we can only pay them to enough to make the ends meet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Screw paying the artist.
Who says the artist will be paid if he/she uses DRM? Even if DRM worked, I don't think it justifies the controlling, harmful nature of DRM.
But I really have no idea where the guy said that artists shouldn't be paid.
Re: (Score:3)
Gee. People just don't get do they? These pesky nerds can't understand that economics of of physical copies must be preserved at all cost. Because economics doesn't change, does it? It is the same as it was in a century or two ago. Or a thousand years ago.
Wake up man! Things are changing all the time. If people don't get your "economics" perhaps it is so because it is not beneficial or useful any more. I guess, the world of computers must be scary for you. All those copy with not price tag on them. Gee.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Because DRM shall be cracked. Deal with it. So it will not stop the pirates. But it will annoy the consumers. I don't want to help corporations come up with better ways of infridging on my rights to backup, store or copy (for fair use ends) the information, that I legally obtained. I don't want crappy spyware being a standart and implemented in every browser. What I do want, though, is to be able to view/play/listen to the art that I legally obtained, give it to my children and not depend on some vendor, that I bought it from to not go out of business rendering my collection of art useless and nothing but a bunch of random bytes, as I would be unable to crack the DRM legally in US.
Wallmart music store buyers learned the lesson. Others will soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
A good DRM standard would include a system of backup. Preventing copies on the other hand is the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand it is a copy. But with a DRM mechanism the copy is generally unusable except on authorized players. The copy is harmless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me break down for you:
1) "You have never owned a song."
Sure, but we're talking about a recording of a song, not the song itself. The song obviously belongs to the artist as long as her copyright holds, but the copies of the recording is a different matter. It is produced by no additional cost, no additional effort by the artist. It is not produced and not distributed by the artist, so she can't claim rights over it.
2) DRM isn't about the artists anyway, but about big publishers who has the budget to pay
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine and dandy, but why should MY computer obey them rather than me? THEY didn't pay for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? If free copies of cars could be created without cost? Just imagine how much money people would save! They are expensive items. They then could use that money for other things that they want/need.
But if you can replicate cars at no cost, then you could probably replicate just about anything at no cost, and then, that is heading down the road to utopia, where anyone can have just about anything they way for free. Awesome. Of course, there is a danger in such a society as well, that of the Lotus Eaters, but that's a problem for tomorrow. The economics of scarcity still dominate the minds of those who run businesses. They need to realize in the age of the internet and electronic good, they need to change to the economics of unlimited supply, which requires a completely different business model.
Re: (Score:3)
Yay, free cars.
But until the star-trek utopia arrives the people that used to make those cars now need a new job...
Re: (Score:2)
Also, 90% of the DRMed stuff is crap too. DRM has nothing to do with quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, you can use torrent and watch exactly the same content, without any problem. All those films just play fine on VLC, guess what.
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose a user sends me a threatening message on some site online. With DRM I can't save it. Suppose I want to save a video so I can play it later (maybe I need to play it offline for my assignment work). Again, if it's DRM'd I can't do that. I don't want my computer to work against me, and I don't think that should be a "standard".
Perhaps the better question is why should DRM be a standard? Why should computers disobey their owners for the sake of corporate greed? Why do media companies pretend that the world will end if DRM isn't added to HTML5?
It might also help to read what media companies have proposed for HTML5 DRM [w3.org]. The BBC wants to be able to take legal action against anyone that bypasses the DRM (even if the user isn't infringing copyright itself).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want ownership of any content. I just want to control my computer.
Sure, I don't. And I don't think anyone else should use it either. DRM is anti-social and an oppressive use of computers.
Maybe it is, but I don't think it should be that way. And I don't think the
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is a system designed to prevent users from controlling their computer. DRM has everything to do with control.
Actually, there is. You must (a) run their software to do it (technical restriction), and (b) agree to a contract (legal restriction). "Use" is essentially defined by whoever wrote the software. The content is crippled so only one or a few programs can run it. And you can download a DRM'd file, but that would be useless on its own. The system that plays it could easily refuse to play it.
No I don't. And you should also remember that fair use and fair dealing are legitimate uses of content which DRM inherently prevents.
Sure, but I think users should choose to only use free (-as in freedom) software.
I think I should be able to control my computer. I don't think a media company should be able to command my computer.
By "intellectual property" I would assume you are talking about a potentially copyrighted work, since "IP" is an umbrella for lots of other laws. Keep in mind that public domain works can be crippled with DRM as well, not just "IP".
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is forcing content creators to use it -- just those who want to stop copying, 99.9869% of which has nothing to do with backups or fair use.
Well, there's also a 99.9869% chance you're a complete moron. Sure you might not be but the chances are you're really that dumb.
In case you missed the point:
Sticking arbitrary high numbers on something doesn't make it true.
Do you really believe that 99.9869% of people who copy music onto their phone to listen to away from home are only pirating it? Even though the
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are so misguided I don't know where to start.
Computer is not "a free ticket to whatever you want off the internet", this is where you are right. The only place where you are right.
Computer is a machine. In my possession, the one that I bought for my purposes. And I want to be in control of it. Because it is a machine, a tool that I use to achieve certain goals. Computer is a tool to work with information, this is the only thing it's good at. I don't want anybody telling me what I can and can't do
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people want access to content and will do just about anything to get it. That doesn't mean they want DRM itself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the standard DOESN'T do it in a standard fashion. It only opens a standardized CONNECTION to DRM implementations.
Wait, so it's an open standard allowing any pluggable DRM implementation, and people are claiming to be against it in the name of open standards?
Honestly, do you know what preventing DRM in HTML5 is going to do? It's going to keep the existing PC DRM solutions (Flash and Silverlight) alive and competing with HTML5 for a long time. Put proper DRM in HTML5 and both of those technologies are effectively done (and good riddance!)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a good thing, because it will mean less DRM due to compatibility issues. Any argument for easier to build DRM is an argument for more DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it absolutely won't. DRM is everywhere now. Not only totally ubiquitous for Netflix and other streaming providers, but used by every cable and satellite provider as well (yes, those are DRM, too). As long as there is enough of a market for any particular DRM to make money, it will survive. And come on - this is software - as long as it's installable on PC and MacOS "compatibility" is irrelevant and it will continue to exist.
And speaking of that - if you don't agree look up CFF. It's going to be th
Re: (Score:2)
Of course DRM makes money for the DRM provider. Never said it made money for the content provider.
And forcing content providers to be DRM-free is going to be about as effective as forcing gasoline providers to lower their prices by boycotting a gas station one day a week. Actually, even less effective since the vast majority of consumers just really don't even want to boycott video streaming solutions using DRM. They really just don't CARE as long as they can watch a metric crapload of TV and old movies
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, check the reality around you. Disk space is cheap as dirt. I mean it. For the price of one month internet service, you get a hdd that could store more FLAC than you will ever need. And tell man, how do you stream offline really?
Also, for your information, the thing that you need to do for having a downloaded music on your machine is just the same as streaming, as streaming downloads the song to your computer, but then it deletes immediately. Not because you have low HDD space, but because you are not
Re: (Score:2)
As of typing this, html5 standard is significantly more "shit" then silverlight or flash. Html is a living standard, with varying degrees of support across various browsers and no end to properly functional and cross-platform version in sight.
Both flash and silverlight are standardised and generally work in the say way across available platforms. They're annoying as hell to some degree due to need to install plug-ins, but at least they work as advertised across pretty much anything that can install the plug
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, I KNOW you are smarter than to use the "I don't use it, so no one else does" argument. Yes, almost 30 million Netflix subscribers in the US alone are using Silverlight/MS PlayReady to stream video. And many many millions more using various forms of Flash/AIR etc to do the same.
For every one of you there are thousands of people who just don't care, and just want to stream a movie, and are happy to pay a monthly fee for it rather than pirate it. Those numbers just aren't going to change anyone's
Re: (Score:2)
What is the W3C 'Working' Group doing on this anyway?
HTML5 wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the WHATWG going around the W3C (who was busy fucking up CSS standards at the time)...
W3C needs to go away...
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't take a genius to figure out why many users of the internet are opposed to a DRM standard
Because they believe DRM is a legitimately bad thing that tries to stop the 'piracy' bogeyman at the expense of user freedom? Or were you just trying to label most people who disagree as 'pirates'?
Let em do it... (Score:4, Insightful)
It will just be another technology that ends up falling on it's face while sucking money out of the corporations while they try to get it adopted as the mainstream or most adopted technology. If they are good for all, they will get used. If they aren't, why on earth would a developer use them? Every W3C set of standards has a bunch of tags that no-one in their right mind uses - or they come up with great new ways to get what they want out of them. I mean as an example (though it never made it into W3C) but look at Silverlight, Microsoft tried to take the market away from Flash, invested heavily into Silverlight, no doubt paid a LOT of developers to use their stuff, I found for a while a bunch of free downloads that "asked" to install Silverlight along with their code.
Look at these stats:
According to statowl.com, Microsoft Silverlight has a penetration of 64.16% on May 2011. Usage on July 2010 was 53.54%, whereas Adobe Flash is installed on 95.26% of browsers, and Java support is available on 76.51% of browsers (May 2011); these statistics makes Adobe Flash the market leader in terms of penetration.[20] As of 26 August 2011, 0.3% sites are using Silverlight,[21] whereas site usage of Adobe Flash is around 27%.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Silverlight#Adoption [wikipedia.org]
Re:Let em do it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but counting "the number of sites" using Silverlight or Flash is silly. Netflix is one of those sites, and it's the single largest streaming video, DRM, and bandwidth user on the planet by a huge margin.
If HTML5 adopted a studio-approved DRM solution Netflix (and most other streaming providers) would drop Silverlight and Flash in a heartbeat. There is definitely something to be said for that...
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is one of those sites
Yeah, I sort of think that that statement actually makes my point even stronger. Look at how many millions Microsoft has put into Silverlight. Now, if they only have a handful of sites using it, they can only make money back off those same sites. Lets face it, the only reason that Netflix would choose to adopt a new technology is if it made it cheaper for them. Even iTunes pissed off the studios by offering DRM free content because they saw it would make them more money.
If everyone starts using DRM, a site
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone starts using DRM, a site will pop up that doesn't use it if there is a want of it from the consumers.
Except that's not how it works.... Netflix uses DRM because that's what the studios require. No site can pop up that doesn't use because they will never be allowed to license the content.
An also, DRM provider revenue is also not something you can base on the number of sites. These proprietary DRMs like Adobe Access and MS PlayReady charge per license issued (basically per stream), so Netflix al
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of price competition for DRM - lots of companies offer it - some give it away, some charge.
Any specific examples of that? And if it's not studio approved, it's useless in this context.
And second - DRM is also useless without integration into an application platform. Which goes back the entire point of this discussion about implentation-agnostic DRM integration with HTML5...
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how many millions Microsoft has put into Silverlight. Now, if they only have a handful of sites using it, they can only make money back off those same sites
Microsoft makes nothing off Silverlight. It's free from Microsoft, both the developer tools (unless you want to use the non-free versions, but why would you if cost is an issue?) and the runtime is entirely free.
Lets face it, the only reason that Netflix would choose to adopt a new technology is if it made it cheaper for them.
Possibly cheaper, more likely, with better features. Netflix can easily do with Silverlight what is currently not possible in HTML or easy in Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely nothing is to be said for that. You would still be limited to whatever platforms Netflix chose to target with their encryption module, and vulnerable to whatever exploits said module introduces. I suspect that said module would become the linchpin for all licensing negotiations, thus crippling the ability for all devices to be HTML5 compatible.
I expect that what will happen if EME is adopted, is that it will be extended to cover entire websites with the next revision.
Thus EME promises to solve no
Re: (Score:3)
That wouldn't help free software though because you can't implement DRM at all securely and be open source. There will have to be some method of validating the client before the site trusts it, and clearly they wont trust anything you compiled yourself or an OS that doesn't implement a secure graphics path.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Hastings LEFT the MS board 6 months ago without explanation. Which makes the example even MORE interesting...
Re: (Score:2)
A flawed example is flawed. Netflix has their CEO on board at MS, so they will adopt whatever crazy tech MS comes out with. Also it is the real reason why Netflix does not work on Linux. It is like saying winphone made it big because Nokia makes them.
it works on linux.
android linux..
and chromeos linux.
their content deals demand a token drm, even if it doesn't work - as long as they can find some company that says that it works so it isn't their problem.
Regional Control (Score:3)
The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. The free get freer, and the shackled get deader.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part I would use Netflix, Amazon's services, LoveFilm, whatever if they had the content I wanted and it was fairly priced, and offered worldwide at the same time. However, we get US release first and the world waits 6 months. That's not the deal, bub. They don
Re: (Score:3)
No. Stop thinking there is any silver lining to DRM. No open standard can EVER require DRM, as doing so would immediately mean they are no longer open. In order to properly implement a secure DRM mechanism, the entire code path from the time the content is decrypted to the time it shows up on the display must be secure. That's not secure from outside intruders, like ssh, mind you. That is secure from the user themselves. That means the DRM package, the browser, the kernel, the X11 server, the graphics
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed standard is designed as infrastructure to give power to despicable companies.
I'm for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality is that some apps (like Netflix) require DRM. Why not offer a standard way to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Let them open and buy there own fucking network for that. i.e. cable tv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many people like you who think that steam is DRM done right. But by the very definition, DRM is always a burden to the legitimate purchaser, and only to him, it can therefore never be done right.
Sure steam works pretty well, but I can tell you it really does not agree with me that valve reserves the right to forbid me access at any time for any reason. Yes I know, valve is not evil (in that particular sense) and won't just disable my account on a whim. But it makes no difference - for all I care Valve could be led by heavenly saints, but when I make a purchase the seller should not have any right at all to hinder me in making use of my purchase. There cannot be any argument about this, it is just wrong.
DRM is evil. By accepting DRM you are making life harder for everyone else, because you show the companies that they can get away with it. This truly is a black and white issue, there can be no neutral stance on it.
NO (Score:3, Interesting)
1 standard is better than 1000 crappy implementations - if you don't like it just disable it like you do any other browser option and you'll never be burdened with DRM'd content.
Re: (Score:2)
2) DRM can't be implemented by open-source applications, and it can be implemented only weakly on open platforms, so content providers will still have the option to tell you "sorry, you can only watch our site on non-jailbroken iPhones or non-rooted Samsung-branded Android phones" - in a standard way.
3) We're not talkin
Re:NO (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you'll have 1000 crappy DRM modules running in the background, exposing you to all of their flaws and limiting you to the platforms they support.
This solves no real problems, except to shift them from Flash/Silverlight to an unknown, black-box module.
Must *NOT* be stopped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't care if YOU don't want to use DRM'd services like Netflix, but some of us DO, and we'd like to be able to use these sorts of services without proprietary plugins like Silverlight dictating what operating systems we can use it on.
I'm a realist. DRM is idiotic and useless, but the people holding the cards are too dumb to realize that. If that means that I have to accept unobtrusive and transparent DRM to view content because of that, so be it. DRM done right doesn't get in the user's way, and a standardized form of DRM will help keep it from getting in the way. This needs to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I really have no problem paying to watch a film; I just don't want paying for it to be a painful, unreliable experience. The way these discussions go on Slashdot, you'd think there was an attempt to make free content illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that the html5 video tag is technically superior to either flash or silverlight's video support. 'Cos, you know, it's not. Even. Close.
Re:Must *NOT* be stopped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't care if YOU don't want to use DRM'd services like Netflix, but some of us DO, and we'd like to be able to use these sorts of services without proprietary plugins like Silverlight dictating what operating systems we can use it on.
Sorry, but it's YOU who want to use DRM'd services who must not drag other people into paying the price of your DRM. And by paying the price I mean the added complexity which I will pay to develop, the computational overhead which I will pay with my energy bill, and above all, the platform lockdown which is necessary to support a minimally meaningful DRM subsystem which I will find in the devices I bought. Define all the standards you want, but don't put them into HTML.
I'm a realist. DRM is idiotic and useless, but the people holding the cards are too dumb to realize that. If that means that I have to accept unobtrusive and transparent DRM to view content because of that, so be it. DRM done right doesn't get in the user's way, and a standardized form of DRM will help keep it from getting in the way. This needs to happen.
Then as a realist you need to know that EME is nothing like that! EME does not specify a single standard, but rather an unified framework allowing binary-only plugins or incompatible binary-only browser implementations dictate what parts of HTML pages you're allowed to save on your PC, depending on who you are, what you're doing and what operating system you're running. In other words, it's just like the Flash plugin without the presentation layer. And unlike Flash, it won't be possible to implement it with open source code.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even looked at the Article or read it?
The EME proposal will not eliminate proprietary plugins. All EME is do is to standardize an interface to access those proprietary plugins. Look at the graphic: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html [w3.org]
Do you see the big block "Content Decryption Module (CDM)"? That is the proprietary plugin.
No DRM can work without a proprietary plugin. Right now it's Flash or Silverlight and you can download it if you want to use Netflix
Re: (Score:2)
See the bug: EME is not limited to video. [w3.org]
The EME CDM is not limited to just video and could well implement an entire
HTML engine defeating the good work of many to allow users to customize the
presentation of HTML. I suggest there is not way to achieve such a restriction
within the space of solutions acceptable to the proponents.
The line in the sand... (Score:4, Insightful)
HTML5 needs to stop (Score:2)
Seriously, everyone raves about it, but it's already poisoned candy. Adding DRM to it would just be adding a razor blade.
The HTML5 spec as it stands now is a mess. The semantics are laughable. Sectioning is a mess. The expanded set of characters allowed in identifiers means lots of ugly escape sequences in CSS and Javascript when those new characters are used (seriously, try writing a selector for <div id="foo.bar[baz]"></div>). And there's still no grouping element for dt and dd elements i
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with absolutely everything you said, except for forms being a separate XML dialect (module, OK).
I can't believe TBL has allowed WHATWG, whos agenda and thought process seem substantially built on their hatred of XML, to prevail over XHTML2. Allowing, nay encouraging, sloppy markup in a spec is unfathomable.
DRM and Open Source don't mix (Score:2)
This extension is really just a API to communicate with DRM plugins. Whilst it would be good to standardise on a single API, it still requires having closed source plugins to do the actual decoding.
Kinda like what Flash does now.
I can't believe what I'm reading. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I see comments on the inclusion of Digital Restriction Management in Web standards couched in approving tones, I know that I must be getting old. To me the only valid use of DRM in the long term is as an answer to a trivia question on screwy 'net practices of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
If in the interim DRM is deemed necessary for some things by some people then incorporate it in a desktop or browser widget as is currently done, say, for Netflix.
And no, I haven't any wonderful answers to all kinds 'good' questions on this, or any deep thoughts on this and the related larger issues; it's just my old fart reaction.
When I bought a book, it was mine. When I used a camera it wasn't locked in to one film manufacturer. Anything with an engine would happily use any brand of gasoline of the correct octane range. When I found that a DVD player/burner I had bought was region-locked, I half flipped. Ditto, when terms of 'sale' for a program I bought on CD forbade making an archive copy.
But then, when I went to see a movie at the theater the thought to bring a movie camera never crossed my mind.
Oh, yeah, just for grins: take Netflix for an example - it uses some kind of DRM, right? (Yeah, I know it does, 'cuz I had to fire up an vm of XP to install Silverlight - until an enterprising duo came up with a wonderful change to Wine that lets me use Netflix from my Ubuntu desktop.) So then, just how many of the protected movies on Netflix don't have torrent or magnet links somewhere? If the answer is few to none, then WTF is the use of having the DRM?
W3C wants to be your big brother (Score:2)
What is the W3C 'Working' Group doing on this anyway?
HTML5 wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the WHATWG going around the W3C (who was busy fucking up CSS standards at the time)...
W3C needs to go away...
DRM has no place in codebase
EME == Active-X on all web browsers (Score:3)
EME is proposed as an API, allowing "binary blobs" to execute. That's ***EXACTLY*** what Active-X does in Internet Explorer. Just like Active-X, the binary blobs won't be a complete stand-alone OS. Instead, they'll hook into your operating system, with high privileges. That means that the binary blobs will be OS-specific.
I can see compromised websites popping up with requests to load codec-XXX to "See Sexy Suzy Stripping". And there'll be a lot of idiots who'll fall for it.
Don't want DRM on your movies on the web..? (Score:2)
Then make some movies of your own and release them to the world DRM-free. That's the FOSS way. RMS couldn't find an OS he could trust so he started working on his own. Linus came along and tied it all together and now we've got Linux. The point is they didn't just bitch about things they didn't like on message boards, they solved a problem they were having and made the world a better and wealthier place for it.
The content that's getting DRM protection - that's other people's stuff. What they do with their
I am not fond of DRM (Score:2)
and that is exactly the reason why i believe it must be standardized. When i get a program or a file i want to answer the question "does it use DRM" easily.
I had recently a very bad experience with an deployment tool, which did not mention DRM at all but actually used DRM methods to protect code from being changed without telling so. I got a little suspicious and after drilling the support for 1h they admitted that the real purpose of the "encryption" was not to "protect the code on the way to the customer"
Not sure it should be stopped (Score:2)
First of all, every DRM has been and will be cracked. If my computer will somehow be able to decode a video for playback, then it's already cracked. And there's no way open source browsers will somehow lack the ability to play back these encrypted files. So, to that end, let them do it. We will have our content.
I understand there may be some GPL issues, but Firefox isn't GPL is it? What browser(s) are?
DRM is a devil. The ignorant and greedy believe things about it which are not true. This isn't a "lo
What's next? (Score:3)
Next thing they'll add will be DRM for web pages, so you won't be able to view the HTML code.
I mean, WTF? Millions of $$$ were invested in the web page, and now some greasy nerd can view it freely? Protect! Protect! Intellectual property!
Great... (Score:2)
Now tell me; since Flash and Silverlight will exist, anyway... How are we going to keep the web open, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it would allow people to view sites like Netflix and Hulu without a plugin.
Probably not.
This standard just provides a way for the browser to work with the DRM. The actual rights removal will still have to be implemented elsewhere.
Re:Oh, the horror! (Score:4, Insightful)
All the DRM shills are out in force tonight.
You'll still need a plugin. Something has to decrypt the video stream, and that thing HAS to be closed source. Aiding and abetting DRM will simply give those who wish to use it even more power. So you will hasten the demise of Flash and Sliverlight, so what. You will introduce a browser-level means for encryption, which could readily (and if this goes in will be) used to force encryption on entire websites.
This solves ZERO problems. None. I suspect, rather, it will introduce even more closed binary modules on systems with even weaker cross platform support and even more security holes.
Re: (Score:2)