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...?

[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...?

[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...?

[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...?

[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...?

[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...?

[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.

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

[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.
 

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.