Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 20, 2013 @04:39PM from the power-to-the-people dept.

jrepin writes "There's a new front in the battle against digital restrictions management (DRM)technologies. These technologies, which supposedly exist to enforce copyright, have never done anything to get creative people paid. Instead, by design or by accident, their real effect is to interfere with innovation, fair use, competition, interoperability, and our right to own things. That's why we were appalled to learn that there is a proposal currently before the World Wide Web Consortium's HTML5 Working Group to build DRM into the next generation of core Web standards. The proposal is called Encrypted Media Extensions, or EME. Its adoption would be a calamitous development, and must be stopped."

28 of 351 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by YesIAmAScript · 2013-03-20 16:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not going to knock DRM off the web.
So why not put in a way for it to be done in a standard fashion?
Putting the ability to serve DRM content into HTML is not going to close the web.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
1. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by slackware+3.6 · 2013-03-20 16:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
  If everyone uses a different standard it slows the spread of DRM and makes it more difficult for those who wish to use it.
2. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Shikaku · 2013-03-20 16:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Can't we just make an IE/Firefox/Opera/Chrome add-on and be done with adding the DRM? If people want it they can install it themselves.
3. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-03-20 17:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
  In no way do I support the idea of DRM in the HTML5 standard.
  But... There is an upside to having everyone standardize on one form of DRM -- once it is cracked it is cracked for everything
  I don't think that comes anywhere near balancing out the societal costs of ubiquitous DRM, but it ain't completely bad.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
4. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Dahamma · 2013-03-20 17:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is that the standard DOESN'T do it in a standard fashion. It only opens a standardized CONNECTION to DRM implementations.
  Wait, so it's an open standard allowing any pluggable DRM implementation, and people are claiming to be against it in the name of open standards?
  Honestly, do you know what preventing DRM in HTML5 is going to do? It's going to keep the existing PC DRM solutions (Flash and Silverlight) alive and competing with HTML5 for a long time. Put proper DRM in HTML5 and both of those technologies are effectively done (and good riddance!)
5. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by tlhIngan · 2013-03-20 17:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
  If everyone uses a different standard it slows the spread of DRM and makes it more difficult for those who wish to use it.
  No, it doesn't. We already have proof of it. In the form of flash video with DRM, and silverlight video, with DRM. Both were extremely popular, and everyone had Flash and Silverlight installed so they could watch their DRM'd videos.
  Now, is this a better outcome than having it as a standardized system? Consider all the flash vulnerabilities and silverlight vulnerabilities - everyone had to have them installed after all.
  And no, your opinion on DRM is not going to matter - if people provide useful content DRM'd like this, people will just install whatever.
  And frankly - what really keeps someone from taking Firefox and modifying the EME handler to instead of playing it in a video box, dumping the unencrypted content to a hard drive? Putting them in the HTML spec means the browser handles it, and honestly, I trust the browser vendors more than Flash or Silverlight. At least the browser gives you control.
6. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by AmiMoJo · 2013-03-20 17:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It would seem to exclude open source software from essential web standards though, which is clearly bad. You can't implement a secure rendering path in open source software, can't hide secure decryption keys in it (even commercial BluRay players find that hard).
  It's bad enough that we have to deal with Flash.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by peppepz · 2013-03-20 17:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The same thing could be said for the whole internet. Why put "art" on a separate plane? Everything that you can access on the internet has value. Books, news articles, scientific papers, software applications. Yet the internet has been developed to be open, and it was a success.
  People who want closed communication channels can already build them, and the onus is on them to specifiy and maintain them outside the open web.
  EME will not give "people that prefer to pay for exclusive non-corporate art a standard way to get that", because it doesn't specify a real encryption method. It's just a standard hook allowing portions of web pages to be decrypted by non-standard binary plugins. In fact, besides Google and Apple, it's being proposed by Adobe. They don't want us to get rid of flash, they want, respectively, one more reason to put "works only with Chrome" banners, a way to put the lockdown of flash into iPhones without having to implement the whole plugin, and a way to keep selling binary plugins without having the burden of having to maintain a presentation layer that with the advent of HTML5 has become less attractive.
8. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-20 18:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So "the last thing" we want is to let poor people have access to culture and education?? Even if it does not cost anyone a penny to just give it away since they were not going buy it anyways? Yes, lock them in cages and set up overseers with whips to make the lazy bastards work! And we can only pay them to enough to make the ends meet.
9. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by peppepz · 2013-03-20 18:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Encryption standards are being specifically excluded by the EME proposers because they're not in their interest. It's not a first step, it's a final one. Read for yourself W3C's plublic html mailing list archives to hear directly from the protagonists who wants to do what.
10. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Pi1grim · 2013-03-20 18:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because DRM shall be cracked. Deal with it. So it will not stop the pirates. But it will annoy the consumers. I don't want to help corporations come up with better ways of infridging on my rights to backup, store or copy (for fair use ends) the information, that I legally obtained. I don't want crappy spyware being a standart and implemented in every browser. What I do want, though, is to be able to view/play/listen to the art that I legally obtained, give it to my children and not depend on some vendor, that I bought it from to not go out of business rendering my collection of art useless and nothing but a bunch of random bytes, as I would be unable to crack the DRM legally in US.
  Wallmart music store buyers learned the lesson. Others will soon enough.
11. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by hairyfeet · 2013-03-20 19:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because you will have no choice but to ban Linux or lock it down? Frankly I've been predicting this one for a couple of years, its why both Apple and MSFT were quick to jump on H.26X over WebM or Theora because they both know the future is locked down media that the masses want and FOSS by its very design isn't DRM friendly.
  But the reason why it can't work on Linux without some sort of code signing and/or hardware based enforcement is actually rather simple, for DRM to work it has to have some way to trust the system is enforcing its rules. with Apple and MSFT the kernel can't be altered by the user therefor the DRM can see that the kernel isn't altered and "trust" it for lack of a better term. With FOSS you can recompile any part of the system to "lie" to the DRM and say "Sure its going straight to the screen, no worries" while in actuality the "screen" is really a file. This again was by design as RMS made the GPL to be USER not developer friendly, if the developers like it fine and if not tough shit because ultimately with FOSS the user has the most rights.
  So while I can see why many are getting their panties in a twist as this will make media content pretty much limited to the big three (I predict Google will lock down Android so they can play the content, Google has been very careful to only allow GPL V2 which has the TiVo loophole) I hate to say this but...you deserve it. I'm sorry but you do, when the public made Apple the biggest corp on the planet while they had some of the most user unfriendly policies you said to the corps "Hey we'll put up with anything that is hip and shiny" and now they are just giving you what you voted for with your dollars. See how MSFT has become a bad Apple clone, everyone is tripping over themselves to crank out iPad ripoffs, hell even Canonical has gotten in on the game with UbuntuPhone.
  So while I wish it wasn't so, I personally screamed bloody murder at H.264 replacing Flash instead of an open codec like Theora or WebM honestly? its too late, you are wasting your breath, the masses have spoken and the future is gonna be glorified game consoles. The corps will decide what you can do and when you can do it and the masses will slurp it up because it means they never have to think or care about what they run and whether it has a viruses because mommy corp will take care of things for you. Frankly the future is REALLY gonna suck guys, the web that was free and open is gonna go the way of Gopher and BBS and in its place? A giant home shopping network. Man its fucking depressing but when people are willing to hand over billions to those that are control freaks like Apple...what do you expect?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
12. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by andrew3 · 2013-03-20 20:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I just want to control my computer
  that has nothing to do with DRM... learn a programming language
  DRM is a system designed to prevent users from controlling their computer. DRM has everything to do with control.
  
  there's nothing stopping people from using or downloading DRM-protected content... if you do it legally
  Actually, there is. You must (a) run their software to do it (technical restriction), and (b) agree to a contract (legal restriction). "Use" is essentially defined by whoever wrote the software. The content is crippled so only one or a few programs can run it. And you can download a DRM'd file, but that would be useless on its own. The system that plays it could easily refuse to play it.
  
  if you have a problem with that, it's pretty obvious that your preference is to download content illegally
  No I don't. And you should also remember that fair use and fair dealing are legitimate uses of content which DRM inherently prevents.
  
  I wouldn't create a program and not release the binary without the source code
  that would be your choice, not the user's
  Sure, but I think users should choose to only use free (-as in freedom) software.
  
  the programmer/artist/musician/tv studio should have the choice whether to release their intellectual property freely or not...
  I think I should be able to control my computer. I don't think a media company should be able to command my computer.
  By "intellectual property" I would assume you are talking about a potentially copyrighted work, since "IP" is an umbrella for lots of other laws. Keep in mind that public domain works can be crippled with DRM as well, not just "IP".
13. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by sjames · 2013-03-20 20:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Fine and dandy, but why should MY computer obey them rather than me? THEY didn't pay for it.
14. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by andrew3 · 2013-03-20 20:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  some people do want access to DRM protected content
  Some people want access to content and will do just about anything to get it. That doesn't mean they want DRM itself.
15. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by Loki_666 · 2013-03-20 21:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? If free copies of cars could be created without cost? Just imagine how much money people would save! They are expensive items. They then could use that money for other things that they want/need.
  But if you can replicate cars at no cost, then you could probably replicate just about anything at no cost, and then, that is heading down the road to utopia, where anyone can have just about anything they way for free. Awesome. Of course, there is a danger in such a society as well, that of the Lotus Eaters, but that's a problem for tomorrow. The economics of scarcity still dominate the minds of those who run businesses. They need to realize in the age of the internet and electronic good, they need to change to the economics of unlimited supply, which requires a completely different business model.
16. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by BrokenHalo · 2013-03-21 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No-one really wants DRM except for some of the bigger and nastier corporations. And as TFS mentioned, it does nothing to make sure the artists get paid for their work.
  
  The best way to ensure that is for them to either distribute it themselves or to sell it through one of the less-evil marketplaces (for instance Magnatune comes to mind). I personally prefer the former, since I like the warm fuzzy I get from the feeling that I am paying the artist directly, but I completely understand if they can't be bothered with the learning curve involved.
17. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by hazah · 2013-03-21 02:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I hate to break this to you, but the world isn't ideal and it's not how it works. Besides, the whole concept of telling people what they can or cannot *see* or *hear* is absolutely asinine. Only people who don't agree seem to be the same people who can't get it through their thick skulls that they're fighting human nature and reality as a whole.
18. Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2013-03-21 03:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That is precisely the problem. You could require that the doctor can only see your medical records in special bunker under the Pentagon, after he has submitted to a full cavity search and provided 20 forms of ID. It doesn't have any bearing on whether the next day he phones up his friendly drugs rep. to say he has an interesting new case. If you share information with someone it have to TRUST them to use it wisely, the is no technology that will help with that.
  Sending records securely over the public Internet is a solved problem and most people manage to do this every day. Storing records securely is also solved, though this is less uniformly applied. Trying to give people information (digital or otherwise) and then controlling precisely what they do with that information is quite simply impossible.
Let em do it... by Fluffeh · 2013-03-20 16:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

It will just be another technology that ends up falling on it's face while sucking money out of the corporations while they try to get it adopted as the mainstream or most adopted technology. If they are good for all, they will get used. If they aren't, why on earth would a developer use them? Every W3C set of standards has a bunch of tags that no-one in their right mind uses - or they come up with great new ways to get what they want out of them. I mean as an example (though it never made it into W3C) but look at Silverlight, Microsoft tried to take the market away from Flash, invested heavily into Silverlight, no doubt paid a LOT of developers to use their stuff, I found for a while a bunch of free downloads that "asked" to install Silverlight along with their code.
Look at these stats:

According to statowl.com, Microsoft Silverlight has a penetration of 64.16% on May 2011. Usage on July 2010 was 53.54%, whereas Adobe Flash is installed on 95.26% of browsers, and Java support is available on 76.51% of browsers (May 2011); these statistics makes Adobe Flash the market leader in terms of penetration.[20] As of 26 August 2011, 0.3% sites are using Silverlight,[21] whereas site usage of Adobe Flash is around 27%.
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Silverlight#Adoption

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
1. Re:Let em do it... by Dahamma · 2013-03-20 17:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, but counting "the number of sites" using Silverlight or Flash is silly. Netflix is one of those sites, and it's the single largest streaming video, DRM, and bandwidth user on the planet by a huge margin.
  If HTML5 adopted a studio-approved DRM solution Netflix (and most other streaming providers) would drop Silverlight and Flash in a heartbeat. There is definitely something to be said for that...
Must *NOT* be stopped. by Guspaz · 2013-03-20 17:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, I don't care if YOU don't want to use DRM'd services like Netflix, but some of us DO, and we'd like to be able to use these sorts of services without proprietary plugins like Silverlight dictating what operating systems we can use it on.
I'm a realist. DRM is idiotic and useless, but the people holding the cards are too dumb to realize that. If that means that I have to accept unobtrusive and transparent DRM to view content because of that, so be it. DRM done right doesn't get in the user's way, and a standardized form of DRM will help keep it from getting in the way. This needs to happen.
1. Re:Must *NOT* be stopped. by peppepz · 2013-03-20 18:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Look, I don't care if YOU don't want to use DRM'd services like Netflix, but some of us DO, and we'd like to be able to use these sorts of services without proprietary plugins like Silverlight dictating what operating systems we can use it on.
  Sorry, but it's YOU who want to use DRM'd services who must not drag other people into paying the price of your DRM. And by paying the price I mean the added complexity which I will pay to develop, the computational overhead which I will pay with my energy bill, and above all, the platform lockdown which is necessary to support a minimally meaningful DRM subsystem which I will find in the devices I bought. Define all the standards you want, but don't put them into HTML.
  
  I'm a realist. DRM is idiotic and useless, but the people holding the cards are too dumb to realize that. If that means that I have to accept unobtrusive and transparent DRM to view content because of that, so be it. DRM done right doesn't get in the user's way, and a standardized form of DRM will help keep it from getting in the way. This needs to happen.
  Then as a realist you need to know that EME is nothing like that! EME does not specify a single standard, but rather an unified framework allowing binary-only plugins or incompatible binary-only browser implementations dictate what parts of HTML pages you're allowed to save on your PC, depending on who you are, what you're doing and what operating system you're running. In other words, it's just like the Flash plugin without the presentation layer. And unlike Flash, it won't be possible to implement it with open source code.
The line in the sand... by SwampChicken · 2013-03-20 17:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

....has been drawn my fellow geeks.
I can't believe what I'm reading. by kermidge · 2013-03-20 17:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I see comments on the inclusion of Digital Restriction Management in Web standards couched in approving tones, I know that I must be getting old. To me the only valid use of DRM in the long term is as an answer to a trivia question on screwy 'net practices of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
If in the interim DRM is deemed necessary for some things by some people then incorporate it in a desktop or browser widget as is currently done, say, for Netflix.
And no, I haven't any wonderful answers to all kinds 'good' questions on this, or any deep thoughts on this and the related larger issues; it's just my old fart reaction.
When I bought a book, it was mine. When I used a camera it wasn't locked in to one film manufacturer. Anything with an engine would happily use any brand of gasoline of the correct octane range. When I found that a DVD player/burner I had bought was region-locked, I half flipped. Ditto, when terms of 'sale' for a program I bought on CD forbade making an archive copy.
But then, when I went to see a movie at the theater the thought to bring a movie camera never crossed my mind.
Oh, yeah, just for grins: take Netflix for an example - it uses some kind of DRM, right? (Yeah, I know it does, 'cuz I had to fire up an vm of XP to install Silverlight - until an enterprising duo came up with a wonderful change to Wine that lets me use Netflix from my Ubuntu desktop.) So then, just how many of the protected movies on Netflix don't have torrent or magnet links somewhere? If the answer is few to none, then WTF is the use of having the DRM?
Re:NO by Microlith · 2013-03-20 19:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, you'll have 1000 crappy DRM modules running in the background, exposing you to all of their flaws and limiting you to the platforms they support.
This solves no real problems, except to shift them from Flash/Silverlight to an unknown, black-box module.
Re:Oh, the horror! by Microlith · 2013-03-20 19:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

All the DRM shills are out in force tonight.
You'll still need a plugin. Something has to decrypt the video stream, and that thing HAS to be closed source. Aiding and abetting DRM will simply give those who wish to use it even more power. So you will hasten the demise of Flash and Sliverlight, so what. You will introduce a browser-level means for encryption, which could readily (and if this goes in will be) used to force encryption on entire websites.
This solves ZERO problems. None. I suspect, rather, it will introduce even more closed binary modules on systems with even weaker cross platform support and even more security holes.
Re:I'm for it. by quadrox · 2013-03-20 21:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are many people like you who think that steam is DRM done right. But by the very definition, DRM is always a burden to the legitimate purchaser, and only to him, it can therefore never be done right.
Sure steam works pretty well, but I can tell you it really does not agree with me that valve reserves the right to forbid me access at any time for any reason. Yes I know, valve is not evil (in that particular sense) and won't just disable my account on a whim. But it makes no difference - for all I care Valve could be led by heavenly saints, but when I make a purchase the seller should not have any right at all to hinder me in making use of my purchase. There cannot be any argument about this, it is just wrong.
DRM is evil. By accepting DRM you are making life harder for everyone else, because you show the companies that they can get away with it. This truly is a black and white issue, there can be no neutral stance on it.