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."

Comments

So what is your suggestion then?

[Intelligenta]

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.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[betterunixthanunix]

DRM will be required by content providers

Which is why they will never see a penny from me. Unfortunately, nobody else has the backbone needed to stand up to them and say, "No, you are not going to take control of my computer in exchange for entertaining me for a few hours."

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[RichMan]

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.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[Myopic]

I don't agree. At the end of the day, if "content providers" are stubborn and refuse to release their "content" without DRM, while at the same time customers refuse all DRM, then those "content producers" will cease to exist, and will be replaced by new content providers, who are actually willing to... you know... provide content.

Oh, are they not willing to show their movies to people unless it is incredibly inconvenient for customers? Okay, well then they get what they wanted: nobody sees their movie. Yay! They got their way! No 'unauthorized' viewing of their content, because there is no viewing of theircontent! They should be very happy about that.

Consumers have done quite shockingly well at refusing DRM over the last decade. We defeated the music industry for the time being. I think it is quite likely that sufficient pushback from consumers could win the fight against movie companies, too.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[vadim_t]

It's an attempt to intrude on and limit what I can do with my hardware, which is unacceptable. It's as if they barged into my home and demanded to to have a guard standing there to make sure I don't get the idea of duplicating a DVD.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[visualight]

There has never been a movie made by anyone that's so good it offsets the damage the copyright lobby has done to our culture since 1978 and not one dime of my money will support them. It's *just* entertainment.

HOLLYWOOD MUST DIE

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[betterunixthanunix]

The fact that if I publish a method of decrypting that stream, or even publish links to descriptions of such methods, I can be sued. No thank you, I may not have any say over blatantly unconstitutional laws but I can refuse to pay for my rights to be trampled.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

.. and bring back Firefly!!

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[betterunixthanunix]

I don't understand why people get so upset when content makers try to control their content.

Probably because regardless of whether or not we actually watch their "content," we are forbidden from publishing any information about weaknesses in their copy restriction systems. In fact, we are forbidden even publishing hyperlinks to such information, as per the 2600 decss ruling. These people are not only unfriendly, they are actively attacking important and fundamental rights in my country, at my expense, for their benefit.

The word "enemy" is appropriate. The copyright lobby should be considered an enemy, especially to anyone who is a fan of free speech, free-libre computing, and a free and open Internet. We are upset because every time our enemy tries to assert more control, we wind up suffering for it.

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[Pieroxy]

That's your choice and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't force it on everyone else. A lot more people enjoy watching content produced by Hollywood than are up in arms over standardising DRM.

Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights. It's the 21st century. 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. So they don't know.

And apparently you're one of them.

I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces. I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*

Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.

And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else. It's been that way since the beginning of DRM and it will not stop. DRM enables piracy because DRM is doomed to begin with - since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!! When will they learn?

Re:So what is your suggestion then?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

You can oppose red light cameras on principle even if you don't own and never drive a car. You can oppose the TSA even if you never fly. Why can't you oppose this even if you don't consume *AA entertainment?

browser pluggable executable objects

[RichMan]

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.

Re:browser pluggable executable objects

[Zerth]

So the DRM consists of some code(which they send you) that uses a key(which they send you) to decrypt an encrypted video(that they send you).

Without TPM/code signing, I'm not sure why they even bother.

Misdirection ...

[gstoddart]

Netflix's Mark Watson responded to the message and acknowledged that strong copy protection can't be implemented in an open source Web browser. 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.

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.

... that content makers demand.

[girlintraining]

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.

Impossible in open source is just impossible

[19thNervousBreakdown]

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.

Not copy protection

[nightfire-unique]

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?

re: analogies and reality

[King_TJ]

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.)