Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Video Copy Protection Scheme For HTML5 Raises W3C Ire
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process. In a discussion on the W3C HTML mailing list, critics questioned whether the proposed framework would really provide the level of security demanded by content providers. The aim of the proposal is not to mandate a complete DRM platform, but to provide the necessary components for a generic key-based content decryption system. It is designed to work with pluggable modules that implement the actual decryption mechanisms."
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
browser pluggable executable objects --
Yeah that always sounds like a good idea.
*sigh*
I thought the whole idea of HTML5 was to get open framework where no unknown code was needed so we could get away from these monsters.
Or, they'll eventually decide to outlaw open source browsers, since they're clearly designed to allow for copyright infringement.
Of course, that is exactly what the copyright lobby wants ... absolutely nothing will be allowed if it could even remotely be used to violate copyright.
This is good for Netflix and the people pushing this ... but it isn't good for the rest of us.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
All this HTML5 hype isn't going to change the fact that the studios are NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER going to support streaming of content on a format with no DRM option.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
For making this work in open source browsers is to use hardware with closed binary-blobs in charge of implementing it? Yeah that'll really go over well with the open source crowd. It totally doesn't defeat the purpose... Seems like a pretty bad way to get what they want. I'd like to be able to get Netflix streaming on my linux machines, but not with this sort of half-baked concept.
Dear Google, Microsoft, et al., the internet IS NOT YOURS. Take your locked down crap that way ----> /dev/null
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Solution: If you don't want your content on the internet, it's not like anyone's forcing you to put it there. You can keep it hidden in vaults deep within the mountains, only accessible with an armed guard who takes everything resembling technology from you, leads you down a long corridor, where you can watch Teh Valued Contentz.
Browser makers have no obligation to help them perpetuate their broken business model. I think the standards committee should just say "No. In fact, let me think about that for a minute... Hell No." Because the internet's very raisin de etre is to share information even when the network is badly damaged, under hostile control, etc. We can't simply redesign it into a read only medium to serve ONE industry's interests, nor should we.
Browser makers: Just say no. Walk away. Let their content rot behind their own walls.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
And?
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Translation: "We're going to charge you more and blame more things on piracy."
Funny part is, the more they blame things on piracy and try to lock it down the more people will actually move to piracy in order to get what they want. It's completely counter productive.
Play video in browser while running Fraps. There I bypassed this first. While the quality isn't that great it is a way to essentially moot what they are doing.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
That's fine. There is a place for free software and there is a place for proprietary software. DRM is security-by-obscurity which by definition requires you to keep the implementation secret. That can't be done with free software, only by proprietary software. And the proper place for proprietary software on the web is in stand alone applications and plugins, not in open standards.
HTML5 will work great for YouTube, Vimeo, and the thousands of other people who don't care about DRM. Those who do can stick with proprietary solutions.
And?
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Um, yes.
The requirement for DRM on streaming video isn't likely to go away, however. If consensus can't be reached and no better approach emerges, there is a risk that some browser vendors will simply implement their own solutions outside of the standards process.
Since when did the big guys followed the standards anyway (IE html validation anyone!). maybe this is what we need ? It's not the first time some company, organization or someone didn't follow standards and his software got way more popular. I could state that mozilla wasn't standard but it did follow the rules way better than IE did with W3C.
Compiled code is just very, very hard to read source code. Luckily, we've got these things called computers that can do all sorts of information processing, gathering millions of data points a second and sorting them for humans to interpret.
If it's impossible to implement securely in an open-source program, it's impossible to implement securely, period. There is nothing magical about machine instructions. A compiled program is just harder to interpret. For one person, out of the 7 billion on this planet. And then it's out there, forever and ever.
This entire debate is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of software.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
All because some other greedy fraudsters in the past suckered them into believing that DRM is technically possible.
at what point do stream rippers start giving a fuck about this? i can record audio or video of anything happening on my screen. i could even use tutorial-building software to do it, and that's legit software. slingcatcher (of slingbox fame) already blocks relaying of video sources it errantly deems protected and we don't even have this crazy shit in effect yet. cut off your nose to spite your face, who cares? there is always a way around. does anyone else think this sounds a lot like the retarded war on drugs?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Yeah, that's what they said about the music industry.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
... the costs to produce content (movies, videogames, etc) needs to undergo a revolution in terms of production costs. This heavy handed DRM is all about the perception of risks.
Just like music companies, right?
In the end, the market will win. If consumers won't buy DRM, then DRM won't exist. It's up to you; tell your friends. We won an amazing victory against the RIAA, now it's time to square off against the MPAA.
I don't really want a netflix plugin, a hulu plugin and a bank plugin. I kind of get the feeling most slashdotters would agree it's much better to have one plugin that runs on multiple platforms then a mess of single use plugins with widely varying platform support. Or even better, have a single interopable standard that makes browser plugins redundant.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
While what you said is true (at least for now, though I'm holding out hope for a something like what happened with iTunes and music), but it doesn't match with your title, which is quite incorrect. There are plenty of examples of non-Flash and non-Silverlight approaches getting studio support (iOS being a prime example, since it supports Netflix as well as downloads from the iTunes Store), but, as you point out, they all rely on DRM. Flash and Silverlight will die out over time, only to be replaced by something else that can implement the DRM they want.
"It is designed to work with pluggable modules that implement the actual decryption mechanisms."
Pluggable Module == Binary Blob == content providers PWN your computer. They won't be content with anything short of that.
There's an easy fix for this: MS, Google, et al, can just stop producing content that people want to copy.
generic key-based content decryption system
Yeah, that worked SO well for Sony.
All this Flash and Sliverlight hype isn't going to change the fact that I am NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER going to support streaming of content on a format with any DRM option.
Flash is dying. People won't install it only to be able to watch DRM infested videos. Even if they did it, I will happily live with Theora and WebM in HTML5 without infesting *my* box with Digital Restrictions Management.
You won't have plugins, but you'll have a slew of applications on your desktop. I find that far more preferable than having browser writers waste time, money, and effort implementing a failed scheme for the sake of the entertainment industry, especially when this will be impossible for open source browsers anyway.
It won't be the studios worrying about streaming and DRM implementations. It will be services that want to implement different kinds of pricing model, maybe pay-per-view or a NetFlix-style flat rate subscription, which have contractual obligations to protect the content and will inevitably pass on the cost of meeting those obligations to their customers.
DRM is going to happen, on a wide scale, for the foreseeable future, and if it's used responsibly that's not necessarily a bad thing (because without it those new business models are unlikely to work commercially, yet many people apparently prefer to pay for their content in those ways). The only result of not standardising DRM for philosophical reasons will be introducing inefficiency into the supply chain, which will ultimately cost consumers more for no benefit or in the worst case make a business fail instead of offering a service that consumers would have enjoyed.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We won no DRM in music we purchase. There is still DRM in music you rent through subscription services, and for good reason. In the same line, there ought to exist DRM for services that stream video content like Netflix and Hulu.
Bullshit. The music industry didn't want that either, yet go figure, now MP3 is sold with no DRM.
The industry, in the end, cares about money. Make DRM unprofitable, and it'll go away, one way or another. Making it disappear is just a matter of putting up a decent opposition.
Content licenses for music have been pretty silly over the years. A standard license for even displaying lyrics requires that the website take basic measures to disable copy and paste. That said, there are many online radio stations on the net operating without DRM. Jango and Pandora come to mind. Then there are stations like Grooveshark that do try to obfuscate their stream. The irony here is that Grooveshark is operating in the gray area whereas Jango and Pandora are appropriately licensed.
Anyway, we'll see where things go. Netflix is sending out a stream and stuck with Silverlight because of their agreements. Hulu is also sending out a stream, but just doing it over Flash. Netflix is closer to a standard model, using HTTP requests for their stream, but uses Silverlight because it has some media expiration features in the packaging format. It's all silly stuff, but once they use a model, it's a hard sale for them to back out of it. Breach of contract and all those kinds of words would be thrown around.
At this point, I'd say Netflix and Hulu are stuck. Lets see what Comcast does. At some point, an online service will pop up using HTML5. Youtube is doing it already with music videos and the like. So that's one win. No luck on movies yet.
If you're tired of the old dinosaurs then get going. Here's part of the solution: http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html From their page: How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What's going to kill movies and TV is what's already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?
MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com
Screw whether it works or not... like I NEED another fucking plug-in/language/idiotic "standard" to add to my page-builds. Let's just add even more to the design/developer's plate... especially when it sounds like it's going to be another flash-in-the-pan, oops, that didn't work out either kind of solution.
Get your heads out of your asses, you morons, and stop heaping more crap on the pile. If you're going to do it, do it right the first time, not with MORE server calls, MORE code, MORE to break, and MORE friggin' reins being tightened on our use and design.
In case you didn't get it, I've just about lost it with these so-called "standards". Fucking wankers.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
Guys, can we all make an effort to start calling it what it really is?
Copy restriction.
The word "protection" was chosen by proponents to steer the debate on whether or not the practice is acceptable.
Frankly, I think it would be appropriate to offer a choice to content vendors: either use DRM/copy restriction, or receive the force of law in protection of your copyright. Not both. And, it would make sense; copyright is an exchange of limited monopoly, so if content is encrypted, they're not holding up their end of the bargain. Who's to say the key will be around when the copyright expires?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Well, first off, I think your analogy is a little extreme ... but regardless? The initial invasiveness isn't as serious as the long-term potential for hassles for the end-user.
I'm sure my HTML 5 enabled browser will perform just fine whether or not DRM extensions are added to the codebase. (If they caused performance or reliability issues like random freezes/crashes, people would scream and complain until those problems were fixed -- just like any other code.)
IMO, the hassle comes in when we transition from traditional cable TV/satellite/over the air broadcasts to internet streaming for our media content. We've long enjoyed certain usage rights for said content (such as court rulings allowing personal use of the VCR to record television programming). But now, the studios and content owners view the move to digital as an excuse to take back some of those usage rights. At best, I think we're looking at a whole new round of court cases just to win back rights we had previously, if everything moves to streaming with DRM. (You know they're not going to simply allow you to click to save a copy of this DRM enabled content as you stream it to your browser, for the sake of "time shifting".)
Worse yet, there's FAR from a guarantee we'd even win such cases. The content owners like to use the argument that these digital copies encourage copyright infringements in a way the lossy analog copies of VHS tape days didn't. (Duplicating digital content doesn't create poorer quality copies; it creates perfectly identical ones. And that means, by extension, you can make a copy of a copy or a copy, and it's just as good as possessing the original content first.)
As long as digital media is view-able then it will be copy-able. That is the whole problem there has to be a way to access the media and once there is a way to access it there is a way to copy it... Like someone said earlier Fraps is capable of recording an entire screen (or a small section) but there are far better programs that do the same thing in higher quality. Like a computer DVR.
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
"We"... are you speaking for the movie studios? Haha, you honestly think we mind what "you" use?
Not to be too flippant, but all the DRM free content available on iTunes shows that this idea is incorrect. So long as it is not available, or difficult to obtain, piracy will continue to grow. And so long as Apple has a prohibition against plugins like that, they are already at the mercy of a DRM free web experience if they want to publish to mobile.
The studios are between a rock and a hard place, with a rising a lava pit beneath them. Consumers don't bow to media demands. That has simply never been the case. Media follows the money.
Just ask free porn sites. They lead the way technologically anyways.
I8-D
He deflected the issue by saying that copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware, and that such hardware can be used by open source browsers.
That'd be the trusted computing component right there. Between the PS3, iPad, and iPhone getting end users accustomed to not being allowed to control their machines, and the fact that now Google is teaming up with Microsoft to turn control of your computer over to Hollywood, it's going to go through this time, I suspect. Give it another five years and you won't be able to buy a computer at a retail store that doesn't have an approved chip in it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What prevents an addon from doing whatever it wants with the stream?
While they're at it, I propose including a specification for a P2P system as part of the HTML5 specification using an onion layered approach to provide a level of anonymity with an encrypted caching system. I mean, what better way to guarantee you can upload content and have it shared even if your servers are overloaded while providing a mechanism that while people may hold part or all of copyrighted works meant for others that they don't really "possess" them and hence need not worry about potential copyright infringement until the point that they actively seek them out through some unauthorized means?
PS - No, I don't really think it's a good idea. I don't really think the video or canvas tags are particularly good ideas, either. I say this primarily because there's no reasonable way to graciously fall back as a general point (here is a hack solution, although I imagine it fails badly in practice for things like live video). Further, I'd point out that things like video and canvas are bound to be used and abused in annoying ways and may lead to all sorts of security issues, which is one reason why plenty among us tend to try to avoid things like flash as well when we can through admittedly imperfect extensions. I'd like to at least see some effort in the HTML5 specification to address these issues first before throwing even more stuff on top. Honestly, though, I'm not even sure if video really belongs in the HTML spec at all.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Doesn't matter if it's a plugin or if it's an application. It's going to be platform specific either way, which we should be moving away from. A pile of platform specific applications cause far more wasted effort then implementing a DRM scheme on top of existing video code ever could.
Better to have something that works and is closed source then have nothing.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
There is still DRM in music you rent through subscription services, and for good reason.
And why do people rent music, when they can stream for free from DRM free music providers like Grooveshark?
And stop wasting time and money on yet another stupid and futile restriction scheme.
Oh, you might be able to make it inconvenient to copy, but any restriction scheme will NOT stop copying by people who are sufficiently motivated, and once copied once by somebody it will be redistributed in some more copyable form, even if it is passed around mainly on darknets and password-protected sites.
The most obvious copy technique is Fraps. And, no, it's not particularly technical to use it or re-encode the output of it. Oh, what's that? You have a solution? You want to pay off legislators to bring in some stupid law that lets them outlaw Fraps? Go ahead. Another tool will appear in its place.
Worst case, people will point their video camera at the screen if they have to.
I don't really want a netflix plugin, a hulu plugin and a bank plugin. I kind of get the feeling most slashdotters would agree it's much better to have one plugin that runs on multiple platforms then a mess of single use plugins with widely varying platform support. Or even better, have a single interopable standard that makes browser plugins redundant.
No
That's why I started using Firebird 0.3 (which became Firefox). It didn't have the clunky stuff. I didn't ever have to worry about active x controls. I only put the features in that I wanted.
The last thing that I want is a browser built to deliver drm content-managed video. I'll download a program if I am interested in that.
When are they going to learn - these things don't stop piracy, or copying, and will be broken before they get popular enough to talk about.
Firefox updates are already enough, I don't want to do a new one every time the content industry decides they need a new flavor-of-the-month drm scheme.
Better idea: stop trying to stuff everything into web browsers. Just bring the mobile Netflix app to the desktop. They could dump Silverturd^H^H^H^Hlight and go with whatever format and encryption scheme gives Reed Hastings the biggest chubby.
That's great but you don't represent the majority of the internet. Most people do want streaming video and couldn't care less if it happens to be encrypted. A good platform enables the functionality people want.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
Ok, so let me get this straight:
They want to send encrypted content to a module that they sent me previously, encrypted so that it can be decrypted with a key that they send to said module?
Yeah, I can't imagine anything going wrong there...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'd rather the companies interested in DRM spend their own time and effort implementing it than forcing it into a standard that causes problems for groups like Mozilla, who either can't support it (and thus are pushed out of the market) or incur tons of extra expense and have to maintain one with a pile of closed code to protect the DRM subsystem from prying eyes and one that's still open.
The only scheme I would approve of personally is to watermark the content, so if someone was to share/upload it, they would be identifiable later on.
I would never buy/rent/lease any "content" that required me to have to ask permission from an external organisation that might one day revoke or deny me access to the keys. As has happened so many times before when services close down. Oh, you thought you had a years access to that set of movies online? DRM service says no? Oh deal.
All the weenies here saying we need DRM to protect the content producers -- you have already accepted to drop your pants for the content cartel, and are now just hoping the entry from behind wouldn't be too forceful. But then again, by agreeing to DRM on your system, you are not in a position to really even ask for lube.
That's the thing, it won't be Netflix, etc implementing DRM applications or plugins. They will continue to use Silverlight or something else that implements the DRM they require and we will have lost the opportunity to rid the internet of plugins.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
If you want to listen on your phone/mp3 player you either have to be near wifi or use your data plan. Also I find it interesting that you use Grooveshark as an example when they rewrote their site using HTML5, yet left the music player component in flash. I wonder why they did that. Further, it's unclear how much longer services like Grooveshark will be around, seeing as that they're being sued by pretty much everyone.
You might remember stories that the PS3 especially but also the 360 would only do HD playback of movies on certain output types... the output types that encrypt the entire path. So, in that case, the monitor itself receives an encrypted data stream and your computer never has it.
It never happened since not enough people have those kind of monitors. I know because my own PS3 is hooked up to a PC monitor that certainly has no such capability.
BUT that is the holy grail of DRM, encryption all the way to the end with it being made impossible to create your own "fake" monitor that could take the encrypted signal and decrypt it. That is hasn't happened is because inertia in tech is amazingly high and monitor makers have little to no desire to cater for this. What does IIyama or Fujitsu or Samsung care about DRM? Sony and MS and Apple don't sell enough screens to force the market to adopt.
Just be wary of buying DRM ready hardware. Every such unit sold makes it easier to force the rest to switch.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The problem is that the content owners are participating in price gouging. As you stated, duplicating digital content doesn't create poorer quality copies, and it's virtually cost free to make a copy.
We need to change copyright law to prohibit digital restrictions management 'technology' and mandate free standards ('open') across the board. Be it document formats, movies, music, etc. The free standards that all companies must comply with should be barred from patent protections. The specifications and base code to implement such standards must be freely available to all parities. If Microsoft develops a new standard and and gets it certified for use in its software the portion which implements the standard should lose copyright and patent protections as well as be available to all third parties. Digital restrictions include 'hardware' restrictions like BIOS's locking out non-approved Mini PCIe cards and cell phones which are 'locked' to prevent change of carrier/and or firmware.
The other thing copyright owners must do is release the content everybody who wants it at the same time for the same price regardless of the device or use. Will this hurt theaters? Only if they don't adapt. There is still money to be made. Some theaters are already changing models from being places that primarily show movies to full-on restraints with wait staff. Microsoft should not be able to release its software to Dell before HP. In the free software world this is largely not an issue because of communal development models. You check stuff in and you check it out.
o.k., digital media is something we pick upon because 1. Something that we come in contact daily and 2. It’s “pure” IP – in the sense that it has a high fixed costs (i.e. cost to make) , low variable costs (i.e. cost to distribute) – unlike some messier things.
South Korea has strict IP laws and has a thriving music industry. Spain has lax IP laws, a thriving pirate music industry – and no new acts recording new albums - neither big nor small. Don’t like entertainment? That’s fine. Society produces what people place value on. If movies don’t have copywrite that means we don’t value them so they won’t be made. (baring other methods to value them.)
However, creative classes and research tend to thrive where IP has better legal protection. IPods are designed in America but built in China It’s an over simplified, I know. And I know that I am blending copy write and parent law under IP. But worldwide it’s suggestive.
Why?
Netflix mails me DVDs that are trivial to copy. Perhaps they should consider that exploit first.
Once we lock down the computers and turn them into industry approved "content viewers", we will have taken the greatest communications system devised to date and turned it into something that looks just like Cable TV. If MPAA thinks this is better than cable (because the cable company charges both parties) they are mistaken - once it's all locked down, the ISPs will start collecting fees from "content providers".
It's proxy attrition...
Do we all have to use Internet Explorer? No, of course not... But what do you do about the time keeping application your employer uses that displays correctly in IE and IE alone? What if paper bills become antiquated and your school forces you to use their CMS to check how much you owe on your account? Oh, and did I mention that the only supported browser for that school is IE? No, the school doesn't make you use IE... Right.
Same thing with this video copy protection. No, you don't have to use it... But...
Thanks Steve!
And they were right? Huh?
Whats that... streaming music services like Zunepass uses DRM?
Whats that... Pandora even with the transition to HTML5 cannot load without Flash?
You are assuming that "time shifting" will need a recording device. Why would the shows not be in a Hulu type setup where you watch all the "broadcast" channels with commercials, when you want. Or you would pay to subscribe to a series and see no commercials, and watch when you want. Granted this puts old re-runs (Star Trek TNG) in a strange place. Perhaps after 6 mos the shows get moved to a Netflix like repository where I pay a monthly fee to access all old content.
Who cares? Most "pirated" film last year was that Iranian thing that wasn't showing at the local multiplex.
The one major studio movie I'm interested in this year is Ridley Scotts film and I won't be seeing it if it's cut to be kid friendly. That's all the major studios know how to do; here kids, enjoy this prequel to a classic '70s psycho-sexual thriller about interspecies rape where an alien parasite fucks a guy in the face and impregnates him. Collect the full set of actions figures free with happily unhealthy meals from McPukeSick! In short: eat shit!
Digital cinema negates the cost of celluloid prints, if the multiplexes will not show decent films then smaller indie cinemas will rise to take their place. Given that most people still believe good films are worth seeing on large screens (even if they're availiable for free online) and the scummy retards who talk and leave their cells on throughout movies will be in the multiplex, this would be a welcome development.
The future is developing with or without Hollywood.
If they caused performance or reliability issues like random freezes/crashes, people would scream and complain until those problems were fixed -- just like any other code.
Ten years of flash suggests that's not entirely reliable.
I am trolling
we will have lost the opportunity to rid the internet of plugins.
Why do you hate modularity?
They keep their locked down content to themselves.
And the internet is for unlocked content.
Either they play by the rules of the playing field or they go elsewhere.
They should stop trying to break the internet and go somewhere else where they can be happy.
I wasn't aware "The Internet" had any rules.
Traffic moves both openly and encrypted.
Some sites are accessible to anyone while others are restricted. Some services are free while others demand payment.
Slashdot has its own "locked content" and paid subscription benefits.
Content can go elsewhere.
To the Internet enabled HDTV, the video game console and set top box.
To the app store and the walled garden of the iOS, the Kindle and Windows 8 Metro.
The problem for the geek is that users move to the platforms supported by the major content providers.
Disney and Warner were the first Hollywood studios to move into television production in a very big way. Davy Crockett. Zorro. Maverick. When Disney moved to NBC and full color production, the audience moved with them.
The pattern repeats in each new generation.
- The parent is saying that the movie studio doesn't own the hardware of the computer that plays the movie, and therefore has no business controlling how that hardware works or what it does (which is true).
- Your reply is saying that the person who owns the computer doesn't have full rights to the movie and so can't do whatever he wants with it (which is also true).
But those are two different points, and it doesn't make sense to answer the first point with the second. You can't deny the parent's point, just as the parent can't deny yours.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us with a totally broken business model for movie distribution, that's where.
you cannot watch a movie unless you are stripped searched and taken blind folded to the remote "viewing camp" location. Before viewing the movie instead of being forced to watch piracy is bad ads you will be beaten with a lead pipe (to remove any piracy thoughts). The movie of course will only be able to be viewed with binoculars while standing on one leg.
I've said this before but it baffles me that the studios are so obsessed with forcing DRM on paying customers.
The kind of people that upload Hollywood movies is already capable and willing of breaking any DRM you can dream of since it is mathematically impossible to create unbreakable DRM. The kind of people who want to pay for content are exactly the kind that avoids downloading illegal copies, much less uploading. It creates enormous amounts of discomfort for paying customers in exchange of minimal discomfort for infringers.
But... the future refused to change.
None of the people in the US of A have known war on their soil, have known hunger and a great repression, none have known a repressing regime.
Yes, except for the Revolutionary (1776) War, Whiskey Rebellion (1795) War of 1812 (1812), Mexican War (1840), American Civil War (1860), Mexican Incursion (1913). Oh, and if you count before 1776, French and Indian War (1747?).
Some idiot TCN told me through a translator that they will win, they have always beat Russians and British empires, they will beat American empires in our mountains/steppes/whatever. I told the translator, "I am from the mountains of New York. We have beaten the British Empire in the mountains *THREE TIMES*, wtf do you think we will do here?" The translator did not say a single *word* back to the TCN and just looked at me.
Americans have suffered, died, experienced hunger, malnutrition, kings and empires from four european countries. They are Americans because they came here to live a separate life. They worked until they had a good quality of life.
That's great but you don't represent the majority of the internet. Most people do want streaming video and couldn't care less if it happens to be encrypted. A good platform enables the functionality people want.
And you know that "most people do want streaming and couldn't care less if it happens to be encrypted" because ... ?
Really? You need a citation that Youtube and Netflix are popular? GTFO.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
Whereas the laws protecting DRM do.
You're just a tosspot.
Even if you don't use any (*and I mean ANY*) DRM'd content, you still have to pay for that hardware. There will NOT be a method of saying "Sorry, I couldn't give two figs for DRM'd content, please refund the cost of the licenses and hardware implementing it, and it's fine if the machine is then unable to read any DRM'd content, as long as it still works on non-DRM stuff".
It will be MANDATORY.
And it WON'T be free.
The movie and music industries are very different, I wouldn't bet on consumer pressure to remove DRM from movies any time soon. Most people want to put the music tracks they have bought on numerous different devices so that they can play those tracks back tens, maybe even hundreds, of times in various different locations. With music people want to own a copy I'm not sure most people actually care all that much about "owning" a copy of a film. Yes, they want to see the film whenever and where ever they want but do they really want a film library like they have a music library?
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Treat people like criminals who have to pay few dollars everytime they see something somewhere. When do we have to start paying money to see ocean view ? Oceanviews only for 5$/hour ...
In my opinion music is sold DRM-free because of the rise of portable mp3 players/smart phones. It was not possible to run arbitrary code DRM schemes on the myriad of devices, so the industry followed the money. Also, mp3s were more easily pirated and their radically smaller size, compared to movies, made them easily distributed. All up, forcing DRM on this environment was not going to work. Perhaps tablets will achieve the same thing for movies, but it seems very unlikely.
coupled with a Red camera in a clean room (or a vacuum between the two if that could be made to work. I suspect this will be the new pirating method and that may be an analog hole the MAFIAA can't plug.
Good Luck!It is nice of you to post it.
Cheap Prada handbag,Gucci handbag,Coach handbag,LV handbag,
wedding ring,Swarovski ring,Pandora ring on sale from China.
------www.womenbagonsale.com
cheap women Coach handbag on sale from China
The thing is that before DRM we had certain rights, but we were physically capable of exceeding those rights. For example, in the UK we've got a time limit on timeshifting, so technically recordings have to be wiped or destroyed after a certain length of time, but it's something that couldn't be enforced by the technology.
I'm not sure that this was ever codified legally (I suspect it's like the "8 pages/10%" photocopying limit -- an assumed standard), so it's something that can be rightly and fairly set as part of the move to DRM technologies. The BBC iPlayer Desktop app is good for this. You can stream programmes or download them to your PC for later viewing. The DRM manages a limited time-shifting, so you can't just hold on to it ad infinitum. That's right and that's fair.
Except that it only works on Windows, which is my big problem with DRM: vendor specificity.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Here is the proof technique that will be used: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/set_theory.png.
DRM decryption occurs on a hardware level, and it will take massive amounts of effort to find this laser-etched (or similar) key. Their will be near-total survaillance of the internet (to stop terror and pedos of course), and the first appearance of any un-DRMed file, will result in rapid stormtrooper deployment.
Therefore, this DRM will not be broken (on a societal scale, without the government being physically broken at the same time)
"do they really want a film library like they have a music library?"
I don't, but I know lots of people who have nearly as many DVDs as I have CDs, which is a heck of a lot. My sister has hundreds of DVDs, for instance. Me? I have literally never bought a movie DVD, mostly because I am a niggard and almost never want to watch a movie twice, partially because I don't want more physical media in my life, and partially because I've been pissed off about the DVD DRM since the very beginning (in fact, I happen to be wearing my original DeCSS/NO DVD CCA t-shirt today).
But like you, "I wouldn't bet on consumer pressure to remove DRM from movies any time soon". I agree with that, because at the end of the day, market pressure works only in extremely rare circumstances -- like almost never, which is why we remember the remarkable exceptions like music DRM or the Montgomery bus boycott. It is for that reason, incidentally, that I reject libertarian free-market theory as nonsensical fantasy.
I held google in relatively high regard as a company that wouldn't comprimise it's standards, but lately, I've been rethinking that. And now this. Google in DRM crap? The same company that publicly protested SOPA? This is total BS.
Hasn't worked well so far. For starters, the analog loop hasn't been closed completely, and it will ONLY work once it has. Secondly, as long as stuff has to run on Windows, (and I'd say, any well known OS) it will be possible to intercept the video feed by software, even if it involves some sort of jail breaking --which, you can assume it's already done-- because people who upload movies also download cracked versions of Windows. And I don't belive the key would be so impossible to break, in the extreme case they could use a distributed computing network using 4chan users, but that's already more effort than it took to break the DVD key and the Playstation 3 key, and once it is broken it will be in slashdot signatures agan.
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the government would have 1984 level of control on the Internet --which I don't dispute-- but at that point you don't need DRM.
But... the future refused to change.