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.
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
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.
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>
Yeah, that's what they said about the music industry.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Dear Wowsers. The internet IS NOT YOURS EITHER. Don't like a protocol, file format, or DRM scheme? DONT USE IT.
Your freedom to choose means that you do not have the moral authority to dictate to other free people as to the manner in which they interact. I'm pretty sure that you dont use Netflix, so what fucking business is it of yours as to how Netflix delivers content? Its not your business at all, BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS NOT YOURS.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
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.
And I won't. But I'll also use all other avenues available: I'll make sure to be as much of a pain in the ass as possible to those who work against my interests. They try to use legislation, and standards and I'll make sure to extert the opposite pressure.
It's an attempt to screw with my hardware and software, which is very much my business.
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.)
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
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
Sure it will: the browser at the very least. And to make it effective instead of just pointless it'll eventually require hardware restrictions.
It's my business because even if I don't watch Netflix, a standard will ensure that my browser will have to implement it anyway. And I don't want to contribute a cent to that.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
Then how do you explain, for example, Xera? (I don't follow Spanish music generally, but I discovered Xera by accident and happen to like them. For the curious, in a hyphenated word they could be described as "electro-folk".)
Since their primary language is Asturian rather than Spanish, I would be surprised if they had much of a following in Latin America. And even if they do, most of them probably haven't contributed monetarily, as the two albums they've released so far have been under a Creative Commons license. (Note the "download album" links right on their website...)
Yet they're busy working on a third album, performing concerts and participating in Spanish music festivals. Maybe music festivals in Spain pay their acts well? Or maybe the members of Xera all have day jobs and do this mainly for the love of music. The bottom line is that they're producing "high quality studio albums" despite any issues with lax IP laws.