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.
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
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.
Yeah, that's what they said about the music industry.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.