What's Actually Wrong With DRM In HTML5?

kxra writes "The Free Culture Foundation has posted a thorough response to the most common and misinformed defenses of the W3C's Extended Media Extensions (EME) proposal to inject DRM into HTML5. They join the EFF and FSF in a call to send a strong message to the W3C that DRM in HTML5 undermines the W3C's self-stated mission to make the benefits of the Web 'available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.' The FCF counters the three most common myths by unpacking some quotes which explain that 1.) DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in the form of services. 2.) DRM in HTML5 doesn't obsolete proprietary, platform-specific browser plug-ins; it encourages them. 3.) the Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web." Also: the FSF has announced that a coalition of 27 web freedom organizations have sent a joint letter to the W3C opposing DRM support in HTML5.

Comments

What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[fustakrakich]

It exists...

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM in HTML5 doesn't obsolete proprietary, platform-specific browser plug-ins; it encourages them.

The only reason any thinking human ever made a conscious informed decision to install Silverlight was to watch Netflix.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[lgw]

The only reason any thinking human ever made a conscious informed decision to install Silverlight was to watch Netflix.

I've always assumed the name "Silverlight" was chosen precisely because it was a platform designed primarily to allow you to watch movies.

DRM means I get to watch Netflix, so I'm all for DRM in HTML5. If it's not embraced in some way by the standard, it will happen anyway, and be platform specific and even more annoying.

There is no "movies without DRM" option available to the standards committee, sorry.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Minwee]

Really? I always thought they chose that because "Silverfish" was already trademarked by someone else.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[fustakrakich]

If it's not embraced in some way by the standard, it will happen anyway, and be platform specific and even more annoying.

And this is why circumvention is important and necessary.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[larpon]

I second that. The simple look, feel and maybe even taste of the phrase "rights management" gives me the creeps. Rights are supposed to free - no matter to whom they belong.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I've always assumed the name "Silverlight" was chosen precisely because it was a platform designed primarily to allow you to watch movies.

DRM means I get to watch Netflix, so I'm all for DRM in HTML5.

Have you read the proposed standard? All it provides for are some javascript bits and pieces for interacting with the 'CDM', a totally unspecified piece of software and/or hardware that handles decryption and optionally on-screen rendering.

They don't call it this, of course; but it's a plugin, albeit one that is invoked in the 'video' tag rather than the 'object' tag.

No CDM for your platform? No playback. That's the thing, this isn't even some 'well, pragmatic compromise to gain greater functionality' thing: it constitutes absolutely no improvement over the current 'proprietary plugin required to playback DRMed movies' situation, it just changes 'plugin' to 'Content Decryption Module' and slightly changes the mechanism for talking to it.

Platform independent? Absolutely nothing in the spec about that(indeed, 'CDM may use or defer to platform capabilities', so it's explicitly OK for CDMs to have design features that require certain platform specific features).

An improvement in the integration of video into the page, DOM access, etc? Well, requesting the encrypted video is handled in javascript and HTML; but the CDM blackboxes everything from decryption to (optionally, probably mandatory if anybody is worried about the browser just grabbing decrypted frames) painting onscreen. Totally opaque blob embedded in the page, just like a plugin.

Other than giving the "HTML5!" stamp of approval to absolutely whatever CDMs people wish to use, the proposal really isn't "in" HTML5 at all. The CDM, the only important part of the game, is 'HTML5' in the sense that Java Applets, or flash objects, or ActiveX controls, are HTML: they can be embedded in web pages using HTML tags. That's it.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Miros]

What? There are a lot of different 'rights' out there - are you arguing that there shouldn't be notions of property and 'property rights?'

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[h4rr4r]

If only there were some way to hook a computer to an HDTV, but that would be impossible right?

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[the_B0fh]

Just so you can watch netflix, we ought to fuck over HTML5?

No, fuck you and your overly endowed sense of entitlement.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Dahamma]

I think you need to brush up on your logic statements... a converse is not equivalent ;)

"If you have installed Silverlight, you must watch Netflix" != "if you watch Netflix, you must have installed Silverlight"...

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Darinbob]

So as long as you get netflix, people can impose whatever restrictive scheme they want?

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Darinbob]

This is one reason I think HTML5 is just a joke. HTML used to be about presenting information, but in HTM5 it's being turned into an application platform. Sort of like the difference between a Postscript viewer and the latest Adobe Reader.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[jedidiah]

The problem with that snark is that web based video streaming on a PC still sucks. It's a variation on the "Flash sucks" meme. Silverlight isn't much better. You're still going to be going about the task in the least efficient manner possible. You will need more machine than what's really necessary.

This is why a $60 speciality appliance can manage the task better.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Eventually the content providers will just provide DRM free media anyways. Do you know why? For the same reason why they still allow content to be broadcast over the air DRM free:

In spite of making threats that they wouldn't permit broadcasts of their media without a broadcast flag, none was ever implemented so they permitted it anyways because it was too lucrative to not do so.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[gr8_phk]

There is no "movies without DRM" option available to the standards committee, sorry.

Actually, the video tag works just fine without DRM - go watch YouTube with HTML 5 and no DRM. The reality may be that there is no netflix in HTML 5 without DRM, but there will certainly be a netflix plugin or standalone app with DRM if it's not in HTML5. There really is no purpose for it in the standard - it's just a standard way to embed non-standard stuff in the web, and that's not good for anyone.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[lgw]

The ability of people to impose whatever restrictive scheme they want persists regardless of the recognition of the existence of DRM in the HTML5 standard. There's nothing the W3C can to do prevent DRM on streaming video.

A standard is only useful and relevant to the extent that it standardizes what actually happens. Wishcasting has no place in a standards body.

Netflix streaming is a significant part of the internet. Netflix will have DRM, like it or not. A standard that simply ignores the reality of a significant part of the market just isn't a very good standard.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Darinbob]

The issue is whether or not that DRM should be enabled by the standard, or even a part of the standard, or whether the standard should remain open to the original idea of enabling the viewing of content in an open manner.

Adobe Flash is a significant part of the internet, but it would be ridiculous to have HTML include it as part of the standard or to have a standardized "flash" tag.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Microlith]

Doesn't change the truth of it.

That's not the truth. The truth is that a banal bunch in Hollywood think DRM is actually useful, and are trying to force their twisted view of reality on everyone else.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "movies without DRM" option available to the standards committee, sorry.

You're mistaken and there's a standard which is over 20 years old. It works extremely well, better than HTML5 or Flash. It's called a "href" attribute of the "a" tag. I challenge you to put forth any movies-on-the-web solution which works half as well as that does.

The reason we didn't just settle on that solution and move on, is that various parties decided they hated the standard, because the standard is too pro-user. It works too well. But don't pretend it doesn't work and isn't available. It's Netflix's fault they didn't use the right tool for he job, not the standard body's fault. You can make excuses and rationalize it if you want to, but at least lay this blame where it truly belongs.

Actually, though it's rare, some people do use the standard. Louis CK's website uses the standard. And as a result, Amazon and iTunes ("technology" giants!) are relative usability nightmares, trivially one-upped in the tech game by a comedian. Louis CK is hilarious, but effortlessly beating the tech giants at delivering a bullet-proof web for-pay video site is especially hilarious.

Seriously, go to the web site, pay the $5, and tell me Netflix isn't a totally anachronistic embarrassment next to that.

The reason "DRM means I can watch Netflix" is that you didn't say "no" when you were supposed to. If you had abstained from Netflix, you might have modern tech today, and be wathcing your movies using that. Instead, you've got some bastardized proprietary software that nothing else can talk to, doesn't integrate with any other components, and whose feature list is made up of the dreams of the whole inter-- oops I mean -- the dreams of one single marketing department. Not even techies. Not movie-lovers. Just some group who makes decisions about what you're allowed to do.

You can begin today, though. Just say no. Pirate until they open for real business, and throw your money at the few who actually deal in good faith and deliver the very best video products. LCK showed it can be done. Who else wants some money? Nobody? Ok, we'll keep our money for now. It's here and waiting for whoever uses the video standard: the "a" tag.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[LordLucless]

Which is fine, because it mirrors the use to which it's being put. People used to display information on websites, now they run applications on them.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[king neckbeard]

You won't be able to legally watch Hollywood movies without DRM anytime soon.

Fortunately, bits don't care about the law, so legally watching a movie and illegally watching the movie can utilize the same process.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[lgw]

The legitimate technical goal of any standards committee is to describe what will happen in the field in such a way that anyone can interoperate. You have the power to be descriptive, but you lack the power to be proscriptive. The vendors will act in in their self interest, and if the common result is something that doesn't match the standard, you've written a bad standard. The W3C has a bad track record for doing exactly that, when compared to your typical ISO/ANSI technical standards committee.

Here's an example of a good standard. In the early days of PCs, Shugart Associates had a nifty interconnect protocol: SASI. INCITS formed T10 to standardize it, and insisted the name be changed, and so it became SCSI. That change worked, because it conformed to the vendor preference not to use a standard named for a competitor (plus it's a basic rule of ANSI). Then Apple came along and did their own thing, making their own flavor of SCSI that wouldn't work with a standard device. Apple proceeded to dominate that market. The standards committee, lacking the arrogance of the W3C, and having the blessing of Apple revised the standard to conform with reality. They knew they couldn't force Apple to change, nor should they, so "SCSI 1b" was born. They changed to standard to conform to the preference of the dominant vendor, and SCSI went on to be one of the most successful technical standards in computing history.

For the portion of HTML5 that relates to streaming video - DRM will be common. Netflix and company don't have a choice here. Ignoring that reality because you don't like it is just childish, and inappropriate for a standards committee.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[makomk]

The CDM isn't necessarily even a plugin; it can be integrated into the browser. So for instance Microsoft could decide that Internet Explorer will have a built-in implementation of their PlayReady DRM as the only CDM it supports and that they won't allow other browsers to use that CDM or other CDM implementations in their browsers, and that'd be entirely compliant with the HTML5 ECE specification. It'd also be entirely non-interoperable with any non-Microsoft browser or platform.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[maccodemonkey]

They don't call it this, of course; but it's a plugin, albeit one that is invoked in the 'video' tag rather than the 'object' tag.

No CDM for your platform? No playback.

So it sounds like we're replacing the current system of platform specific plugins, with a new system of platform specific plugins.

I fail to see the controversy.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[devent]

Fine with that. But please make a DRM _standard_. Not an API to access DRM but the DRM itself.
That means, describe the DRM standard so that anyone can implement it. Even in Linux I can implement any DRM, just like I can implement any encryption, but give me a standard.

All EME is doing is to describe a API to access DRM. That's it. Don't believe me? Go to the EME proposal. See that big one: Content Decryption Module (CDM)? That is the DRM. All around it is the EME.

Just to make it clear: the EME will not standardize the SCSI. All EME is doing is to standardize what cable you use for SCSI. That's it.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[ozmanjusri]

HTML is supposed to be platform agnostic. This is explicitly balkanizing it.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[coliverhb]

This is one reason I think HTML5 is just a joke. HTML used to be about presenting information, but in HTM5 it's being turned into an application platform. Sort of like the difference between a Postscript viewer and the latest Adobe Reader.

As someone who works with HTML5, I have no idea what you are talking about. Most of the things you may consider HTML5 are actually javascript + html5 + css HTML5 is litteraly about structure, with sane defaults, that's it. Javascript handles the client side decision making, animations, etc., css handles the styling and some animations (It's just beginning to delve into that). HTML5 is absolutely about presenting information in a simple, standardized way - you're bemoaning the marketing dept. of most web solutions companies, which are taking a leaf out of the 'Cloud' and 'Green' marketing handbook.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[wagnerrp]

You're missing a key point. In order for DRM to work, everything needs to be a totally opaque blob, including your browser, your graphics drivers, and your operating system. Any sensible CDM (yes, Flash is not a sensible CDM) is going to require the browser be tested and signed that it will uphold the restrictions of the DRM. Your signed browser will require your operating system be signed before it allows the DRM bits to operate. Your signed operating system will require all your hardware drivers be signed, and so on...

It's a huge clusterfuck with the end result that free software loses out. And if anyone mentions that CDMs don't have to be for DRM, they're an idiot. If all you want is conditional access and security, there are plenty of openly usable and widely implemented encryption protocols that can give you that.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[wagnerrp]

The truth is that DRM actually is useful, but not for what most people are misled to believe. DRM is not to prevent piracy. Its long track record of being completely impotent in that regard is plenty argument for that fact. DRM restricts what the honest consumer is allowed to do with their purchased content. That allows the content producer to sell the same content to the consumer repeatedly. That is the ONLY purpose for DRM to exist, and the sooner the public begins to understand that, the sooner the public will refuse to accept DRM, and the sooner DRM will die.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[wagnerrp]

DRM is not a standard that can be openly implemented. It necessitates a central licensing group that oversees product that touches DRM'd content, and verifies that it will uphold DRM. Who do you suggest should run this ultimate authority on who is allowed to write web browsers? It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with going against the core foundation of openness on the internet.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[Pi1grim]

"And "presentation of video on the web" means DRM."
No it doesn't. Seems like you've been brainwashed into thinking that some corporation's sense of entitlement trumps basic human rights to obtain, process and share information.
Content can and should be available DRM free, because the only thing DRM does - screws the customers and makes pirates gloat. Because any DRM can be broken by definition. And hoping that you can prevent information from being copied by some people who have access to it at the same time being able to copy it by others having access to it is just like hoping you can make air breathable by some people and not breathable by others by your own arbitrary choice.

Re:What's Actually Wrong With DRM...?

[hairyfeet]

Unless you are just a freeloader that isn't the problem at all, the problem is they don't know where to stop.

Take the company I often use as an example because frankly they are the ONLY ones who have gotten DRM right...Valve. why do you think it was so easy for Valve to get Steam running on Linux, even though they can't put kernel level DRM hooks? Because Valve knows DRM isn't there to stop piracy its there to stop Billy Bob from just handing out a copy of his steamapps folder to all his buddies on a flash drive. Can you bypass Steam? Sure you can, in fact a good number of the game cracks out there work just fine on Steam games but do you see Valve cracking down and making steam a DRM nightmare? Nope and because of this they have doubled their profits 7 years in a row.

So the DRM itself isn't the problem, done right it would run on Linux or Windows or your grandma' lawnmower if it had a supported chip, nope the problem is they always go batshit with DRM so the consumers can't use what they bought while the pirates laugh their ass off. Lets be honest folks if the DRM ran just as good on Linux as it does on windows this wouldn't even be an issue except for the batshit brigade that think "The web should be free herpa de derp!" yet I don't see them on a street corner giving away THEIR labor for nothing, talk about hypocrites. if you want to give away YOUR work that is fine and dandy, give it a CC license and call it a day, but those that don't want to give their labor away should have the right to try to make a living same as you do.

In the end it comes down to two and ONLY two choices, either some form of DRM so those that create content can get paid for it (since obviously the honor system alone ain't gonna cut it) or we stick with the whole "Have to sell to a multinational megacorp so they'll have the money to sue everybody" strategy, pick one. Maybe if both sides could come to the table like adults instead of making it political we could sit down and work out a nice compromise, but sadly what we'll get is either locked down tighter than a nun's thighs or nothing at all, and that is just a damned shame.

Bias

[bradgoodman]

As much as like the concept of "open and free", blah blah blah - I'm not really buying the argument. I don't want to swallow "big media's" load of tripe on the issue - things aren't all black-and-white. I don't necessarily swallow the arguments made by the OP about wanting to "sell back services" and "limiting functionality of devices". "Big Media" doesn't care about your device or what it does - it *does* care about piracy, though. So let's call a spade a spade, and admit that it *is* about copy protection (whether you like/agree with it or not).

This is like the old DIVX argument from years ago. Just because your device is *capable* of playing protected content - it doesn't mean you *have* to play (or pay for) protected content. It would be nice to be able to offer the functionality for services like Netflix, Amazon, or whoever else you want to watch, in a standardized, cross-platform manner, without every media provider having to build some hokey Java or Flash player into every browser, TV, DVD player, Game console, etc etc etc - and still have wonky support for only half the devices, and no support for "new" services on "legacy" devices.

But I digress - I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion on the matter - let's just call a spade a spade - it *is* about copy-protection.

Re:Bias

[denis-The-menace]

For DVDs, at least, it's about forcing makers of DVD players to respect the "can't skip commercials" features of commercial DVD discs.

That way the commercials are force-ably watched. (at least on hardware players)

As copy protection goes, it's as good as ROT-13 for encrypting text.

Re:Bias

[lorenlal]

"If they provided me with good cheap DRM'd service, they'd have my dollars."

And I guess that's where this is really irritating. Because, as of yet, there hasn't been a "good" nor "cheap," let alone "good and cheap" DRM service. Really, DRM has been about making sure you have to fit a very specific set of conditions to view content that you probably paid for. Usually those conditions involve "viewing from Device P, running Operating System Q, with Browser R," even though it has nothing to do with the content you're viewing.

So, we look at Netflix as the opening case. To watch a movie in Netflix on my laptop that is running Linux, I have to jump through a large number of hoops... Or, I can fire up my Xbox 360, or my PS3, or another machine running Windows. Why is that? Certainly it's not about stopping piracy... Because I can still jump through those hoops and get there.

DVD regions... Why did they exist? It was certainly not to prevent piracy, because you could easily copy the bejeezus out of them. Rather, it's to prevent you from buying a copy cheaply in one region, and bringing it home... Because their content is overpriced here. BlueRay? Same deal right? Again, not about piracy.

Really, DRM has always been about soaking legal users as much as possible, or it's been about shady corporate deals to force users onto particular platforms to make them have to pay their partners. That is all it accomplishes, and that's perfectly fine with them.

Re:Bias

[blackiner]

How about you guys actually think about it for more than five minutes?

If making sure the video stream was encrypted was the big deal, it can just as easily be down with javascript. AES is not some mystical impossible to implement technology. The purpose of DRM in HTML5 serves only one purpose, to add a "black box" to websites. So how is this DRM actually implemented by the browsers? Who the hell knows. If it relies on software, then it will simply be cracked instantaneously. There will be no point to it. Firefox is open source, you can just recompile it to direct DRM streams into a file or something. If it instead redirects the DRM stream to hardware, well, then you are basically fucked. It will only work with certain computers/devices. You end up in a situation similar to websites requiring flash currently, where some sites simply don't work with your tablet or such.

The implementation they seem to want is to have the browser redirect the DRM stream to a software blob that will decrypt it and do "something". God knows what. But it will work on most devices, provided they cross compile plugins. This is the same crappy situation as activeX, where you will are forced to install plugins where you have no idea or control over what they do. If you don't install them, entire pieces of websites will not work. And they will pop up EVERYWHERE.

This is the worst possible outcome, there is a good reason people are fighting this.

Re:Bias

[MozeeToby]

Here's the thing. It takes one guy, anywhere in the world, to break DRM and post it somewhere. Does your DRM eventually decode to a format that a human being can see and hear? Then it will be broken. Someone will use audio/video capture devices if nothing else and all you've done is piss a bunch of people off. DRM for movies and music is fundamentally broken because at some point you've got to end up outputting all the information to the user (at least with SW it is theoretically possible to prevent unauthorized access).

Re:Bias

[silas_moeckel]

Big media cares about a lot more than copy protection. They care about reselling you the same content in multiple formats. They care about restricting where, when, and how long you can access content. They want to limit sharing of content. They want more rights than what copyright gives them for longer than the already insanely long copyright term They want to force there content to check in so they have an idea who and where somebody is accessing it. They want control over what operating system and what hardware you access the content on.

DRM is not just copy protection it's a slew of rights the content owners that they never had before. Copy protection can be as simple as watermarking each copy sold, that gives them about what they had in the dead tree age. It's flawed sure but keeps the status quo.

You have to realize that you can keep adding more and more security along the path but it just hampers lawful users. Today's best consumer DRM is still vulnerable to "simple" attacks like emulating a LCD display since that's after the HDCP decoder. Watermarking only gives you a good idea of who to sue not all the rest of the bits.

As to HTML5 it should include a robust media streaming framework. That frameworks must be open. All the DRM systems I know of can not exist without some sort of secret that's obfuscated from the end system but still accessible, that's the antithesis of open.
 

Re:Bias

[bradgoodman]

I agree. But if a service elects to use it anyway - why not just give them a standardized way to do it - that will work across all devices, rather than making them jump through hoops, creating different plug-ins for all sorts of devices, many of which are less-trivial than others. (Think writing a Firefox plug-in vs. a Tivo or Wii plug-in).

If the services deem this as "sufficient" protection, give them a way to do it. If you're "pissed-off" by the way a particular service choose to implement it, and the restrictions they impose, you are welcome to not use their service. But at least you would be able to run a service that you *did* choose to use on a wide variety of HTML-5 compatible devices.

As it stands today - they can still design DRM that pisses you off, but have less options on what to view them on.

Great example: DVDs are a PITA - they don't let you rewind, or fast-forward through ads. I don't like them - so I don't buy, rent or watch them. With Netflix, I don't "own" the content - but they don't force me to watch ads. For the price they charge, It's a good service and a good deal - so I use them. Netflix is a big enough of a company that they've put their plug-in into my DVD burner, my Tivo, an app on my iPhone, and plug-in's for my browser. Great.

If some other company or service started today - they'd have a VERY steep curve to go and create plug-ins for all such devices - and they would NOT work across any OLD devices.So I'd argue the lack of DRM standards are helping incumbent services maintain their monopolistic market dominance.

Re:Bias

[ADRA]

So big media sits in a vacuum in the web for your argument to hold water? Sounds pretty flimsy.

Put another way, if media companies didn't care about controlling media in any sort of effective way, why not remove all artificial limitations on skipping and have unlimited region support for the media in question? By your argument, these mechanisms cause zero benefit for them, and substantially reduce the enjoyment of their viewing public.

When we have the panacea of web DRM, will that mean I'll have first day access to new shows anywhere in the world? Will I be able to fast-forward, pause, rewind, skip, bookmark, comment on, etc.. these videos? Will I be able to legally transfer my right to watch purchased videos to a peer? Legally take excerpts from the video for humour / reviewing / commenting / archival purposes?

Put more pointedly, why would I support a framework that grants no new rights, and restricts ones I still currently have away? People bought into steam because they 'did it right', and the platform offers value. People bought into Google to browse and share data, because generally Google adds value to your browsing experience. You think Bing or Google's numerous past competitors couldn't catch up to Google eventually? Sure. But Google continually uses the data that YOU give it to make the service a better one.

Media corps on the other hand continually ask for more and give less, so I (and many others it seems) have decided to stop supporting their business model.

Re:Bias

[Hatta]

The difference is that gun control has actually been shown to reduce gun violence, whereas DRM has never actually prevented anything from being copied.

Re:Bias

[Miros]

I feel like reasonable people can disagree about both sides of that statement.

Re:Bias

[robot5x]

Hey guys - we live in a global capitalist economy, what else do you expect?!

These are money-making enterprises, and they can and will do everything in their power to squeeze as much money out of us poor consumers. I actually don't have a problem with this, even though I'm politically on the left - it's the flip-side of being able to have cheap shoes and clothes imported from China, and so I can buy cheap consumer electronics.

What always interests me is exactly how consumer sovereignty gets lost from this debate. We don't HAVE to watch these movies, and we don't HAVE to take up cable subscriptions. Without us voluntarily handing over our hard-earned money these corporations are NOTHING. If they can screw the consumer and the consumer keeps paying, what incentive is there for them to stop? Vote with your wallets!

Re:Bias

[Darinbob]

Big Media cares about piracy, slightly. DRM does slow down piracy, slightly. However what scares Big Media is that loss of control, and DRM is designed to fix that. DRM is all about preventing you from reselling media that you have bought, or lending the media out, or making backups, or viewing it more times than you are authorized for, or viewing/listening/playing on media that's not properly locked down to prevent illicit copying, etc. Piracy is just the excuse Big Media uses to get naive people to accept DRM.

It is *not* about copy protection. Pirates will copy this stuff the day it's made available, while legal purchasers will be the ones stuck with the disadvantages.

Re:Bias

[kwerle]

No, they don't. Web has been a major thorn in their side for many years. Big Media wants 100% control or they want it to die.

That may or may not be, but netflix, amazon, hulu, apple, microsoft, google, etc disagree with you. I think all of 'em would love to ship you copyrighted data over a standard DRM'd channel supported by many browsers.

Re:Bias

[spire3661]

The problem is that what you describe allows evil to fill in the cracks. If i vote with my wallet and abstain, but 50 other people still buy the Bad Thing, it doesnt mean that Bad Thing is moral or just or should be allowed to prosper. It just means 50 people parted with their money, allowing Bad Thing to grow. There are times when this philosophy breeds True Evil, and that is where capitalism needs to wane and social ideas need to surge.

* Bad Thing and True Evil are relative terms, set your own goalposts on those.

Re:Bias

[jedidiah]

> . But if a service elects to use it anyway - why not just give them a standardized way to do it - that will work across all devices

That's a nice fantasy.

Unfortunately, the reality is much less ideal.

It is not standardized. I will not work across all devices.

It's really just like the current solutions (Flash, Silverlight).

Finally a group that gets it!

[rubypossum]

We don't need to hobble our technologies to make certain people money.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[bradgoodman]

How is it "hobbling" the technology. If you don't like the DRM aspect of it - don't watch protected content with it. It's not going to have any affect on you.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[betterunixthanunix]

DRM, by definition, hobbles technology. This is not about "choice" -- if all the major media outlets use this technology, it will be enabled by default on everyone's computer, and everyone's computer will be programmed (by default) to fight against the user.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[bradgoodman]

No, it would merely *allow* one to play DRM protected content. If you don't like the protection, don't use that services content. Service do all this today, they just need *proprietary* plug-ins to do so.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[h4rr4r]

Nope. It will not work everywhere, it cannot.
If the plugin was universal then there is nothing stopping us linux users from writing the output to a file instead of the display. That means the DRM would be useless. Instead it will need a CDM for windows to use protected path, one for whatever OSX uses and that will be that. Nothing else will get support.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[h4rr4r]

No, my critique is that DRM is bad and adding it to the spec is useless. It means compromising ideals for absolutely no gain.

There cannot be a standard CDM, DRM implementations have to be hidden and blackbox like. Else they will fail. If the same plugin just took in encrypted files and output them via normal methods capture would be trivial. Hell, linux users could redirect the output to a file.

Re:Finally a group that gets it!

[westlake]

We don't need to hobble our technologies to make certain people money.

Half of prime time Internet traffic in the states was a licensed Netflix download before Netflix offered a download-only service.

Standard Definition, No multichannel theater sound. No captioning,

The only thing you accomplish by keeping content protection out of the browser is to shift focus to the walled gardens of the OS branded app and app store.

Subscription services?

No problem for OSX and Windows, the Intenet enabled HDTV, the Dennon home theater receiver, the Roku set top box. The Xbox, Playstation or the Wii.

Big problem for the Linux enthusiast not running Android or Chrome.

Even worse than DRM...

[bradgoodman]

...is that when I went back to the original Slashdot post on "Ian Hickson (author of HTML5 spec.) on the real purpose of DRM" - the enclosed link to the original article made me go through a sign-on to Google Plus" :-O

Re:And who cares?

[0123456]

how could "DRM in HTML5" NOT obsolete proprietary, browser-specific plug ins?

Because, uh, "DRM in HTML5" is merely a framework to allow sites to require specific proprietary, browser-specific plugins to display their content?

I could care less about DRM in HTML5.

Probably because you don't understand it.

Re:Downs Syndrome is no joke, but you are.

[Dputiger]

The top 1% of the US captured 121% of the wealth generated during the "recovery." The bottom 99% actually got poorer.

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/13/economic-recovery-in-the-us-ac.html

That's why, despite record stock gains, real wage growth is flat. Improvements in the unemployment rate overall are much smaller once you count the number of discouraged workers or consider the underemployed. The jobs being generated don't pay as well as the ones people lost, and they don't include the same level of benefits.

Facts. They kick ass.

Re:But the W3C is a Industrial Consortium!

[ADRA]

Much unlike MPEG, there are no trade requirements that requires these specifications to be followed. They throw them up, and the organization lives and dies by adoption, not because we have to. If W3C wants to release yet another specification that members or the general public decide not to adopt, nobody gets sued, and the specification most likely stick into the vestigial category of web crap thrown in that seemed like a good idea at the time, like VRML or the likes.

Now as stated, W3C is essentially as relevant as the works they publish. If they abandon the wishes of their general community, why would people consider them a good source evolving web standards if they push the platform into areas that nobody cares about? Is a DRM 'specification' relevant because half the browsers support it? Doubtfully.

Who the hell cares if DRM is solved or not. We can't even agree for a set of video codecs to use on it, and that just puts us back to where we are today with plugin platforms that sit on top of the basic web specs, which IMHO isn't a bad thing.

This is easy...

[gQuigs]

DRM is bad.[1]
HTML5 is good.
If a bad thing is included in something good, that thing is still bad.
Therefore, DRM in HTML5 is bad.

[1] It should be obvious DRM is bad, but: https://www.eff.org/issues/drm

In fact, Consumer oriented DRM should be illegal. It's an anti-competive anti-consumer dangerous practice. (I'm totally fine with the military using DRM to protect confidential information, etc).

Re:Downs Syndrome is no joke, but you are.

[gr8_phk]

How do you capture 121% of the wealth? Did they take 100%, then give 21% back and then steal it again or something?

Whatever the increase in total wealth was, the top 1 percent got 121 percent of that number. This means the other 99 percent lost 21 percent of that number. So if there was 1 trillion dollars in new wealth, the one percent got $1.21T richer and the 99 percent got 210B poorer. In otherwords the 1 percent had structured their investments/the rules/whatever such that they tend to accumulate wealth at the expense of everyone else, and on average all new wealth goes to them. Hope that clears it up a little.

Re:Current method lends itself to monopolies

[Requiem18th]

I just noticed you are just a Holywood shill. Took me a while.

You make very stupid arguments. Like, really stupid arguments. Ok let's say EME goes into HTML5 and now every browser in the market has to implement restrictions on who (and when, where and how) a piece of media is loaded into your browser.

Does that help you mythical Netflix competitor? Nope, your device is lacking the required CDM game over. The CDM has to be provided some other way, either by hardware (like TiVo) or software (like silverlight). You managed to waste everybody's time to achieve absolutely nothing.

Linux? Not for 1 second

[bussdriver]

Open source implementations of DRM? you think the content mafia is going to allow you to use an open implementation of some DRM "standard"? 1st thing hundreds of C coders will do is dump the frame buffer into libmp4 just to snub the bastards!

W3C has capitulated, just like ICANN

[Taco Cowboy]

Remember ICANN ?

Remember ICANN's statement of interest when it first started ?

Remember what ICANN told us back then, that is was for all the netizens ?

It even opened its application to individuals --- I applied, and I even got a membership card mailed to me

What has happened to ICANN is happening to W3C --- they have been co-opted because of BIG MONEY

It's the BIG MONEY that they have sold their soul to --- to hell with the users, to hell with the netizens, to hell with the world

Introducing Scarcity into Superrich worlds

[Elixon]

I can understand that gold has a real price. I can understand that a house has a real price... because they are scarce. That is why there will be real-world poor a rich people.

Internet and the whole intellectual world was never meant to be driven by scarcity. The Internet was build to mitigate the real-world problems with duplicating resources. The Internet allows the main commodity - information - to be transferred, duplicated, created, shared... at virtually no cost. Internet is the attempt to create a world where there are no poor (speaking of knowledge) people but everybody share everything as much as possible for the good of mankind.

The scarcity complex is artificially introduced to this unlimited e-world by companies who simply failed so far to find a new business model in a world where everybody is already rich with information - everybody are already fed with information. Where there is no hunger/demand there is no traditional business model. So lets make those information rich people become poor so they will hunger for information and then we can feed them for a price.

Let's deny access to information using a copyrights, laws, DRMs... Let's artificially create once again information-rich and information-poor people because the existing real-world model proved to work so well.