Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards

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."

Comments

Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[slackware 3.6]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[Dahamma]

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!)

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[andrew3]

Suppose a user sends me a threatening message on some site online. With DRM I can't save it. Suppose I want to save a video so I can play it later (maybe I need to play it offline for my assignment work). Again, if it's DRM'd I can't do that. I don't want my computer to work against me, and I don't think that should be a "standard".

Perhaps the better question is why should DRM be a standard? Why should computers disobey their owners for the sake of corporate greed? Why do media companies pretend that the world will end if DRM isn't added to HTML5?

It might also help to read what media companies have proposed for HTML5 DRM. The BBC wants to be able to take legal action against anyone that bypasses the DRM (even if the user isn't infringing copyright itself).

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[peppepz]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[Pi1grim]

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.

Re:Not putting in DRM isn't going to eliminate DRM

[andrew3]

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".

Re:Must *NOT* be stopped.

[peppepz]

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.