Slashdot Mirror
Will Google Oppose DRM On HTML5 Video?
An anonymous reader let us know that "Mozilla has committed to not implement DRM in Firefox for WebM HTML5 video even though it is theoretically possible. Microsoft has asked Google and the WebM community several other questions that still have not been answered, but this one seems more important: will Google commit to keeping WebM in Chrome DRM-free? Does our community think that is important for the open web and free software?"
Direct Rendering manager belongs in the kernel, not in a user process ;) ;) ;)
Why are we leaving the decision up to Chrome? iOS devices are a giant chunk of the mobile market and play H.264 fine, and so do Android devices and Palm's WebOS. I'm not sure about Blackberry, but it's odd that Windows Mobile doesn't support H.264 given Microsoft's support of it. Also sites like YouTube's Mobile site are using H.264.
In light of all this, why is WebM such a big deal? Are there any vendors (aside from Google) that have products out using it (or using only it)?
Funny, I thought DRM was theoretically impossible. Something to do with Bob and Eve being the same person.
I spent a long time opposed to DRM because of the lock in effect. Except that reality has pretty much rendered DRM as obsolete.
DRM does not and has not protected video game publishers.
DRM does not and has not prevented every significant song, movie, or other work from being easily, readily, and widely available on torrents.
DRM does not and has not generally resulted in an improved customer experience.
In a very real sense, it is frequently easier to use the pirate version of a game than the normal one. I love the GTA series on PC, and every single game I ever purchased I almost immediately installed the No-CD cracks. Yes, that's right. I bought all the games of GTA I ever played, and I cracked all of them just so I didn't have to dicker with the stupid DRM.
So, other than annoy the end users, what purpose does DRM serve?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Let me clarify my stance before I'm modded into the ground -1 Fascist. I hate DRM. I hate it when it's on things that I purchase and download for my own use. But I do recognize that it has become an evil that will never leave us, and so I always try to reward those who come up with creative ways to implement it such that it does not impede my ability to use what I legally own, and perhaps even adds functionality (Valve's Steam comes to mind). However, for videos that are only present online and I only plan on watching online, why would DRM be such a terrible thing? I'm not supposed to download those videos anyway, so their being protected by DRM doesn't matter.
Right now the BBC serves H.264 streams via flash and it has pretty lousy performance (Flash) or pretty awesome performance (via the same stream in XBMC). If they want to shed Flash entirely and still serve a large proportion of the web then a limited amount of content protection is almost inevitable because the content producers (ie, not the BBC but the people who own some of the shows they broadcast) demand it.
Sure, ideally there would be no content protection at all (it really doesn't affect the free distribution of the content at all) but right now that is just not a reality.
I would love BBC iPlayer to be able to serve H.264 with HTML5 (it already does to iPhone user agent strings) since it would free me from the flash performance hog that makes HD streams stutter even on a powerful desktop machine. It won't happen if a sizeable portion of the browser market won't support it.
I'm only talking about iPlayer here, but it applies to many video services across the web - trying to force the DRM hand too early will just perpetuate Flash.
In the long gap between Windows Mobile 6 Professional and Windows Phone 7, iOS rose to handily beats mobile Windows. Only recently did Android, a mobile environment using the Linux kernel, surpass it in installed base. In addition, with Google's failure to certify devices that aren't phones for Android Market access, iPod touch holds a virtual monopoly on PDAs that aren't phones.
There is no way to have standardized DRM... The whole idea of DRM relies entirely on security through obscurity, and if you publish a standard then that obscurity is gone.
Even with an obscured scheme, if it's worth it to anyone (ie there aren't easier ways to get the same content) then someone will reverse engineer the format and work out how to extract the data from it in a usable way. This will _ALWAYS_ be possible, because the player itself has to get the data into a usable format itself in order to display it.
All DRM does is inconvenience legitimate users, pirates will just download media that is not drm encumbered and have a better user experience.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
1) Blu-Ray players will soon shut off people from using component video to play 1080p content, downscaling to 540p. I'd call that "ruining your ability to watch it".
2) Many DRM schemes backfire and give users a lot of trouble (see StarForce for a good example).
3) YouTube videos can be quite easily scraped off the site and downloaded, so Flash doesn't implement a whole lot of DRM either.
There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market.
Furthermore, Mozilla's already said it many times. They're not in it to get the biggest marketshare ever, they're there to push the open web and open source movements. They want standards, they want open content. Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission. I regard Mozilla as a watchdog that tries to keep the web in line with the open source community's values. They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
If you're confused by the three emoticons at the end of his sentence, how do you suggest that one indicates that a sentence or a section is a joke?
c++;
DRM does not and has not protected video game publishers.
Yes it does. The digital restrictions management on video game consoles protects established video game publishers from competition from smaller indie developers. Console makers have a history of not granting licenses to micro-ISVs, and "homebrew" software relies on fragile jailbreaks that the console maker can and does fix with an update to the console's firmware.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest. Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
So, you didn't even read the subject line this time? Just saw "google" and "html5 video" and noticed it was time for some anti-google FUD?
c++;
In many cases, CTOs for production companies understand and agree on the futility of DRM. Contracts with the actors and the production crew, however, are what require that the distribution be controlled in some manner. Specifically, things like royalties for distribution become difficult to calculate when there is no DRM involved.
The technical folks in the industry -- even the ones who make the decisions -- don't particularly want DRM but are often contractually bound to deliver it. Perhaps years down the line, a better model for cast/crew compensation will present itself and these agreements will slowly start to reform themselves.
because it's royalty-free for implementations of VP8 algorithms when those algorithms are free software implementations. this is HIGHLY significant when it comes to cost-sensitive products. even the MPEG LA group has recognised the importance of automatic royalty-free patent grants, in their call for contributions to the upcoming MPEG-2 algorithm. you should read slashdot, you know ;) or did you miss these stories last week, or did you not understand the significance?
DRM is, in fact, evil(even if you don't think that its objectives are.)
DRM is, inevitably, simply cannot be done any other way, a class of methods and mechanisms whereby my computer is placed under a 3rd party's partial control in order to make it obey their interests, rather than mine. Even if I happen to agree with the particular rule being thus enforced(which is hardly assured, most DRM users go beyond the rights copyright law allows), it is the change in the ultimate controller of the system that is the inevitable and unacceptable consequence...
The fact that any system sufficiently robust to allow for effective DRM also allows for effective censorship is just icing on the cake...
Go ahead, hide the download button. I have VLC plugin, and I'll just tell VLC to pipe everything it plays to files on the hard drive. No problemo. Whoops, sorry - you already knew that, but the DRM dummies didn't. I should learn to keep my mouth shut, huh?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I think the point he's making is that if there's no standards-based mechanism for delivering DRM-protected video, content providers will simply keep using Flash to do it, reducing interoperability and leading to inferior user experience.
Which is a fair point.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
If you're confused by the three emoticons at the end of his sentence, how do you suggest that one indicates that a sentence or a section is a joke?
Use the Blink tag. Overkill, it's the only way to be sure.
As long as DRM is effective enough to keep the "pirates" in the minority it will be worthwhile. If it serves to keep the average teenager from making copies for her friends it's working. The purpose of the DMCA anti-circumvention provision is to prevent the commercial distribution of circumvention technology. While the publishers would rather you weren't able to get at their stuff for free, they can live with it (despite their hysterical claims to the contrary).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
>>>NO business in their right mind would agree
I've read plenty of stories about artists and businesses that DO give away their content for free. i.e. Not copy-protected. They discovered that doing so earned them MORE money, not less, in the form of more sales.
This is kinda similar to how lowering taxes can actually create More government revenue in the long term. It's counter-intuitive but study-after-study has shown that giving stuff away creates awareness, and that awareness creates sales.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Problem is, there can't really be a standards-based mechanism for delivering DRM anything, at least not in the sense of open standards on the Web.
Right now, if I stick to HTML5 and stuff like WebM, there is the theoretical possibility of me taking nothing but existing open source stuff, or even starting from scratch, and writing software that can consume that media. Pretty much any DRM which allowed me to do that wouldn't really be doing its job as DRM.
The better route is to suck it up and leave the DRM behind.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
HTML6 and the tag haven't been approved yet, so he didn't know.
I hate DRM on purchased music/video downloads. But for streaming services it is absolutely necessary, and not to keep dedicated pirates from stealing content. For streaming services such as netflix it keeps honest users honest. Netflix allows 5 devices per account and you can only stream when you are paying the subscription fee. If there was no DRM, then there would be easily available programs that would let you download movies to your computer to be watched after canceling. And remove the 5 devices per account limit.
Honest users would do this, but with DRM they would not. It is in some ways similar to anti-shoplifing measures at retail stores. Sure a professional shoplifter can avoid this, but it provides enough security to keep the honest shoppers honest.
no, DRM makes things not searchable... there's no way Google wants that. Most of what's on YouTube doesn't NEED DRM...
The whole point of HTML5 video is so that "everyman" can use video services... for family videos... i.e all the crap that's on YouTube, Flickr, picassa, etc. HTML5 video isn't about SELLING videos... it's something that should have been done ten years ago... why should every browser not support a modern video format, like they support gif, png, jpeg? That's what everybody misses in this discussion. Everybody has their own DRM versions... I don't really see those going away, there's no reason the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Adobe will have their own anyway...
The whole thing is bogus anyway... the big guys aren't going to give up their private DRM schemes anyway... all they're doing is stalling the process to fuck over the little people. Once Open HTML5 video hits and Google and Mozilla start implementing it then Apple and Microsoft will come along. Hell, if Adobe was clever they'd tack Vorbis and WebM into the next Flash and all the enterprise businesses would be none the wiser and keep using IE6!
DRM only on streaming would be practically pointless if the same product is for sale without DRM. Why would you trust people to not share their purchased content with a million of their closest friends as prohibited by copyright law, yet not trust them to follow the streaming agreement?
There doesn't have to be a download button in the streaming application, but if you're willing to use a network/memory/display sniffer/download tool to get it in violation of your subscription agreement you're probably also willing to torrent the copy that someone will inevitably share.
It sort of sounds reasonable until you realize that for DRM to work the entire stack under it must be trusted. You can't have a trusted DRM app if the kernel will just snoop it. You can't have a trusted DRM app if you can just dump the frame buffer.
Microsoft claimed the GPL was viral, well DRM is extremely viral. Anything touched by DRM'd content must be closed source and "robust" against attacks. All copies of DRM-managed content must be under DRM, sold or streamed. Accepting DRM is death for Linux, X, open source drivers and open source applications.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A video decoder needs the raw video bytes in order to update a frame buffer for display on the graphics card. Therefore somewhere between receiving an encrypted stream of bytes and processing a raw stream of video bytes, the decryption needs to happen.
In classical cryptography the objective is to protect a message that Alice sends to Bob from a man in the middle. However, with DRM, there is no man in the middle. To address this conundrum, a secure channel of communication between the provider and the consumer of a stream is setup such that the private key of the consumer is assembled from some unique hardware parameters. If the user knew the private key, then the secure channel would be broken.
Hence the objective in DRM becomes an absurd exercise in obscuring the client private key. The entire "security" of the DRM process relies centrally on obscurity. The "obscure" part is exactly how the private client key is built and what methods and protocols of encryption are used.
With open-source however, no protocol will be obscure and no method to assembly a client key will be obscure. Therefore it is impossible to implement DRM in open source, because the whole premise of DRM relies on implementation obscurity, and the whole premise of open-source relies in implementation transparency.
Experiments and other stuff
but seriously, is Apple going to give up Quicktime and Fairplay? Is Microsoft going to give up h.264 and Windows Media Player? keep dreaming kids. None of the big companies have any intention of using "open" HTML5 video anyway. I wish Google, Opera, Mozilla, & the W3C would cut them off and stop listening to them.
Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission.
"Overturned"? IE is not longer "seemingly invulnerable", but it's still the dominant browser. And WebKit is more widely used than Gecko. Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was the first to put a notable dent in IE's market share, and is now a major player in the browser realm, but that's about it.
Mozilla is much smaller than the web. They need to realize this if they wish to remain relevant. Enough normal people were fed up with IE's poor quality, poor security, and lack of features, to make Firefox successful. There aren't enough people upset over H.264 for Mozilla's current crusade to meet with the same success (a success which isn't even market dominance, which is what they are aiming for WebM to achieve over H.264).
Hey!
</sarcasm></sarcasm></joke>
Close your damn tags!
DRM is the attempt to square the circle. There is no feasible way to get DRM to "work". However there are a lot of ways to make everything around it break more, to the point where, as a software developer, you don't want to touch anything that has the label DRM on it with a long, long pole.
Experiments and other stuff
And my point was that nowhere in the subject, summary or article does google mention anything about not having DRM or having DRM. In fact, they don't say anything at all because the two links in the article are from Mozilla and Microsoft. The GP is just spreading FUD about google in this case. The headline is an open question asked by Microsoft.
c++;
I'm not sure about Netflix, but the DRM that Hulu and BBC's iPlayer use, RTMPE, was broken a long time ago. However, while it's possible to find programs for saving the streams from these services, but there don't seem to be widely distributed, user friendly programs to do so. I don't see why the situation would necessarily be any different if there were no DRM at all. People seem sufficiently happy with the service Hulu and iPlayer provide that they're not going to the trouble of downloading software to get round the services terms and conditions.
what name would you recommend to replace Digital Restrictions Management?
That's easy:
Content Restrictions Against Playability
or CRAP, for short.
You mean if there's no way for movie studios to control everyone's computers? That's what it really is. We are much better off without such adoption.
What, exactly, do you think that proves? It definitely doesn't prove the statement "broadcasting and DRM are mutually exclusively incompatible".
Nobody anywhere thinks "I want to initiate some 'dominoes' and make my DVD player be living room policeman". Nobody wants restrictions, nobody wants unskippable bullshit, nobody thinks what you're thinking that they do when they push play on the dvd player. You're totally confusing what people *want* versus what they *tolerate* because they have to. What they want it for it to play when the push play, skip when they push skip. That's it.
If you don't believe me try asking some other people "do you WANT your DVD player to refuse to skip FBI warnings or do you merely tolerate it because you have to?". I bet you not one single honest person tells you they WANT FBI warnings.
As for the page setup dialog being displayed, most of the time I do, as do most people. This concept of studying people to make software that does what they want intuitively is called "usability" (though I don't think it is practiced much anymore, sadly). And as you pointed out, a lot of software allows this to be customized, unlike DVD players in the US.
As for the annoying printer drivers, well good thing it isn't illegal to sell less annoying printers. We can't say the same for DVD players.
Good point. But, I'll point out, in turn, that unjust laws only teach people that the law doesn't matter. One of the very first things a leader learns is, never give an order that you know will be disobeyed. Every ensign who has ever been commissioned in the Navy has been taught that. Nothing destroys the aura of authority more quickly than to give inane orders that won't be listened to. Our government "leaders" are quite busy destroying whatever authority they might have held regarding "digital rights". Every city, town, village, and crossroads in America is filled with kids who know how to download and save music and movies to their favorite media. Government and **ia's will never recover any real authority in this area.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br