Slashdot Mirror
RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5
gnujoshua writes "In a new article, GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman speaks out against the proposal to include hooks for DRM in HTML5. While others have been making similar arguments, RMS strikes home the point that while companies can still push Web DRM themselves, the stance taken by the W3C is still — both practically and politically — vitally important: '[...] the W3C cannot prevent companies from grafting DRM onto HTML. They do this through nonfree plug-ins such as Flash, and with nonfree Javascript code, thus showing that we need control over the Javascript code we run and over the C code we run. However, where the W3C stands is tremendously important for the battle to eliminate DRM. On a practical level, standardizing DRM would make it more convenient, in a very shallow sense. This could influence people who think only of short-term convenience to think of DRM as acceptable, which could in turn encourage more sites to use DRM. On the political level, making room for DRM in the specifications of the World Wide Web would constitute an endorsement in principle of DRM by the W3C. Standardization by the W3C could facilitate DRM that is harder for users to break than DRM implemented in Javascript code. If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"
It's like a secret code, just for us: RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5
BlameBillCosby.com
So many acronyms! It's a good thing I'm in the industry, or I'd have no idea what that headline means.
I imagine trying to communicate this to my friends and family: RMS (sounds vaguely British) urges WC3 (the successor to Warcraft II) to reject on principle DRM (Dr. Mario) in HTML5 (they've probably heard that buzzword by now)
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Those can be circumvented through the analogue hole, making DRM only an obnoxious hurdle, not a cure. If you want to give people a sample of something, adopt the Apogee model: give them the first part and end it on a really nasty cliffhanger. If there's no data to copy, there's no risk of it being copied.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
They won't rest until the web is like television. Unidirectional, full of corporate messaging, highly polished emptiness. Think back to the web in the late 1990's. They're already 80% of the way there.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
I'd be quite happy if they'd standardize the DRM in HTML5. That way there would be one common DRM to crack instead of everyone having their own peculiar variant.
What can you do with a bare kernel though? The GNU apps are the best part IMO.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The kernel is Linux. Pretty much all of the software is built with GNU tools (e.g. GCC). GNU/Linux is a label that describes the Operating System (not just the kernel).
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Would linux, the kernel, had any chance to spread out in the world without all the GNU software running on the top of it? I think Linus owes RMS more than RMS owes to Linus and so it goes for linux and GNU.
As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.
If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.
Aren't both of the above the *desired* configurations for closed-source and/or media/content providers - and possibly the government?
[ Now, where is my tin-foil hat? Okay! Who took my frelling hat? ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.
I wish I had mod points. The goal of DRM is to force everyone to pay for everything, every time, everywhere.
Not really. The most popular Linux distribution, called Android, uses Java as their userland. Not GNU.
Wait... you promote Ron Paul while promoting the government regulation of markets and infringements of natural rights by enforcing the copyright monopoly?
Hypocrisy much?
As far as I understand it, DRM in HTML5 would be like the Video tag; no actual specific format specified, just a standardized method for declaring its existence. Just as people can put proprietary, patent-encumbered video formats in an html video tag, so too could they with the DRM standard in HTML5. Folks would still have to install or have proprietary DRM blobs/programs of sorts for any of this to work. Ironically, this puts DRM in webpages potentially even less tied to web technologies, as they'll be passed through to OS-provided methods.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Time for a history lesson! Early linux users didn't use GNU utilities. They used minix utilities and ported over the BSD utilities. The FSF had to port their utilities and gnu libc to linux to remain relevant. Today, most Linux users are using android... no GNU needed.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I dare say Busybox has a good chance at edging out Android as the most popular Linux distribution.
I usually find his views a bit extreme but in this case I believe that DRM will be the thin edge of the wedge. Suddenly a huge amount of perfectly open content (say government data) will be DRM'd as a reflex. Plus the DRM will come out on Monday and be cracked on Tuesday resulting in just having a new buggy and useless layer to deal with. So now you will invite a whole new audience to the cracking party. So people will all start downloading FirefoxK'd.
No DRM means no content.
You do realize there was content before DRM was invented, and most content today has no DRM?
DRM is bad for an open standard, as DRM cannot be implemented openly. DRM requires a central authority license anyone who wants to implement the standard. Saying it is good or bad is besides the point. It is something that is technologically incompatible with the purpose of HTML.
This crap is already being done with proprietary garbage like Flash and Silverlight as RMS mentioned. Let it stay that way, keep it out of web standards. If a company wants DRM bad enough, they'll find a way to shoehorn it into their site no matter what. It will still be easily broken to hell and back and effectively worthless--but at least that worthless crud won't be in the standard like (*gasp*) WEP. Not saying that WEP was bad-intentioned, but it's been found to be broken in ways that any HTML DRM will take only a fraction of the time to be broken. DRM practically exists only to be broken.
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
That's why all digital music is currently under DRM, as is all Javascript, photographs, recipes, comics, web pages, newspapers etc.
Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are:
Video
eBooks
software
And software's easing off in favour of a walled garden approach.
No DRM doesn't mean No Content... it means No Content From A Few Rich Content Merchants (not producers). The content will still be produced, just differently. However, with DRM in place, that's no longer an option. Then the content will be produced, but the limit is put on consumption rather than on limiting means of production.
Most people think that DRM is about them as if it is supposed to keep movies from appearing on The Pirate Bay. It's ineffective at preventing this as it takes just one leak, any leak of a cracked or "analog hole'd" to be shared to render the whole scheme as ridiculous. And it is, ridiculous, as evidence by the fact that movies and the like are generally more easily obtained via TPB than commercially.
But that's not really the point of DRM. DRM prevents 3rd parties from being able to make a buck off the content being protected. Companies are extremely averse to liability, and even though cracked content is widely available, trying to make a buck off of it is nearly impossible to do without opening you up to legal liability.
DRM isn't really about you, it's about irritating you in order to prevent other companies from improving your experience with accessory services.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Not just that, as more GNU utilities, such as bash, gcc and so on have gone GPL3, they are like an albatross around Linux' neck, since a lot of companies don't want to touch that w/ a bargepole. Just as FBSD and others have gone to LLVM/Clang, don't be surprised as even Linux starts coming out w/ non GPL components in its userland, just like the recent ZFS-on-Linux. Ultimately, one will see a complete non-GPL non-GNU userland come up for Linux in order to make it yet usable. Even things like BTRFS are neither GPL3 nor CDDL - they are GPL2.
Except... the proposed changes do not actually implement the DRM itself. The DRM itself is still going to be done using external plugins. The changes are to implement a standardized interface for these plugins to connect to, and to authenticate that the browser and operating system has not been modified in any manner so as to defeat the DRM.
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
Having done standards-committee work, I'd phrase that differently. The standard is what's out there in the field, that you have to code against. All the committee produces is a document, which you hope enough vendors adopt (and interpret similarly!) to become standard.
Netflix and Amazon video and the rest of the commercial streamers are all contractually bound to use DRM. So it doesn't matter what the W3C says, the significant chunk of internet traffic that is legal video streaming will have DRM. Nothing the committee can possibly do will change that contractual reality. Better to standardize it as best you can then to childishly ignore it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do we bother posting reporting on RMS.
While I think he's a smelly hippie with no appreciation of reality, he's still an interesting smelly hippie, because he provides a clearly reasoned argument for his (predictable) position for a given issue.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ask every android device or busybox router what you can do without GNU.
GNU apps are a bunch of incompatible hacks on old tools from real UNIX. They are fucking obnoxious at best as fucktards don't seem to understand their retarded arguments are mostly done otherways already and entirely incompatible with anything other than gnu tools.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Bad is a subjective concept, and DRM can't be it (at least, not for everybody). The following are objective characteristics that do apply to all forms of DRM:
1 - It doesn't disturb pirates in any way
2 - It destroys value for your paying customers
3 - It makes the communication channels proprietary
Rethinking email
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
Yes DRM is coming on the web. Oh wait, DRM has been with us since the first days of Flash player, Shockwave player and Real player, Silverlight Player. RMS is against DRM in the standard. The companies can do whatever the hell they want, but the W3C must not endorse DRM in the standard. It's not only a symbolical stance it's a political stance as well.
And a good one at that.
Those that want DRM develop their own solutions. But the W3C should not endorse in any way such developments.
GNU/Linux is not an operating system. It's something that some distributions call themselves, like Debian. Ubuntu on the other hand is not GNU/Linux.
"Not being able to figure out the difference is what will doom you."
Thinking there is a difference, or that you have choice, will doom us all.
Wrong. If we standardize it in the browser, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on free web browsers such as Firefox or Chromium... and of course, if the DRM were properly implemented, this could result in the distribution of web browsers that could not be run on free operating systems such as GNU/Linux, unlocked ChromeOS, or after-market blends of Android.
DRM requires that every single piece of code that handles unencrypted content, from the browser, to the operating system, to the hardware drivers, and even the firmware on that hardware, be signed and authenticated such that it will uphold the restrictions of the DRM. Yes. By definition that means that Flash has a broken DRM implementation.
Implementing something openly means anyone can implement it. If any user could implement it, then any user could just as easily fake implementing it, lie to the previous block of code in the chain, and immediately divulge the keys to themselves. DRM cannot allow this to happen, thus the keys AND the code must both be protected from the user.
Just because you don't have DRM does not mean users can freely access your system. Conditional access is completely separate from DRM. Conditional access limits initial access to the content. DRM prevents what users can do once they do access the content. DRM is not even to protect against users violating your copyrights by redistributing your content, as time and again, history has shown that all DRM systems will be broken, and broken in short order. People who illegally download content never have to deal with DRM. DRM is merely to artificially restrict how the otherwise legitimate paying customer can consume the content.
Who cares what tools it was built with? If I build an operating system with MSVC++, do I have to prefix "Microsoft/"? I rather assume I'd get sues by MS for trademark infringement if I did so. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
THAT is the why DRM is bad and needs to go away.
Do you even have the most basic idea of what a technical standard is or does? Standards committees do not make moral pronouncements, and do not determine what happens on the internet. They are not priests; they are not lawgivers; they merely hope to describe a set of interfaces that you can write code against.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The copyright lobby doesnt EXCESSIVELY speak out too? Everyday they are spouting new lies on how piracy will end the human race, and you are bitching about Stallman?
Good-bye
To be fair there are alternatives to a lot of GNU products these days. On the other hand, GNU still hasn't produced a viable kernel.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
RMS doesn't use that word, "open" a lot.
Doesn't use "greed" a lot.
Those are probably your preconceptions of what he says.
RMS usually talks about freedom, as in not giving away your freedom.
DRM requires you to give some other entity control over your devices, more than what you have. That means giving away freedom, and that's why he is against it. I agree with him, also.
DRM is required to get them fully on board.
Even assuming that were true, I'd rather have no content.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Bullshit. The player manufacturers long ago so the writing on that wall.
Pretty much all of them but sony are easy to defeat (by design).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"Theft is the issue and all the people that are claiming its about 'openness' and 'freedom' are liars and what they are actuallying saying is 'I want to get content for free'."
That's right, that's how Microsoft and Real and Walmart stole my money by killing their servers holding the DRM keys so I can't listen the music I paid for.
By the time I found the floppy that held my backup, had no drive and couldn't afford to buy one; was also homeless for part of the time when there were emails about changing accounts or whatnot - but that still wouldn't have worked without either the backup floppy or the original key file stored on a drive that died - and yes, my bad, me between backups. The CD that held important docs and files also went West. (One box of CDs got saved by a friend, the other tossed by the landlord.)
You can say that's my problem for being a fuck-up; maybe so, but my stupidity, whatever, changes nothing.
The only way I can listen to the music I paid for is to rip it, which last I looked, was illegal in some places.
Thieves? Most certainly. DRM is a ripoff, from the time I first met it in 1988 to now. As others have sufficiently pointed out, DRM is not an anti-copying measure (except thought so by the naive who've been sucked into that myth) it's a publishers' (not creators') lock down mechanism - one that can conveniently require customers to continually re-purchase a license to listen, view, play, material they had stupidly thought they were buying.
DRM is a weapon against the honest, or those who wish to be so.
Ah, here we go again. The myth that technology and technological standards can be politically neutral. A convenient myth, since it we can then absolve ourselves from any responsibility for how that technology is used.
just because you want content doesn't mean that I and everyone else should have to have spyware and crippleware on our systems.
DRM goes way beyond just playing some stupid videos - it's an integral plank in the war against general purpose computing.
WTF do you think Microsoft's Restricted Boot is for? it's certainly not for protection against viruses - its purpose is to control what you can install or run on your computer.
at the moment, it can be disabled on x86 computers and motherboards, but it CAN'T be disabled on ARM-based Win8 tablets. The Win8 tablets are a trial-run to get people used to the idea that they can't install other operating systems - or software bought outside of MS's app store - on the hardware they've bought.
same for iphones and ipads - you pay for them, but you don't get to really own them, or decide what you want to install or run on them. You can only run what Apple allows you to.
stock android devices are also full of spyware (for google, the manufacturers, and for telcos), but at least it's possible to install software for sources other than Google's app store (either by USB cable or from other app-stores like FDroid), and it's also possible to root them and replace the stock OS with cyanogenmod etc or even a non-Android Linux. not perfect, and they're still spy devices by default, but better than nothing.
and this is NOT just limited to phones and tablets - this is the future for PCs. Apple are already mutating OS X into an IOS style app-store only device, and microsoft is pushing for the same with Restricted Boot.
when you buy hardware with such restrictions you're voting for it with your wallet. you're saying "yes, fuck me over, take my money but retain ownership of what i've bought". people like you would buy a turd on a stick if you were told it was a better hot-dog or that you really needed it for the Full Flavour Experience<tm>
so, yes, life is about principles. partly because principles in themselves are important, but also because principles affect results.
DRM is a way of forcing ALL sales to be rentals.
except, no discount for being just a rental. you pay full price but still don't get to actually own what you bought.
My own personal battle against DRM is driven by my anger over not being able to read ebooks visually. Instead, I translate ebooks to audio files using text-to-speech tools. The entire audio path I use, even the TTS engine, is FOSS software, and some of it (the speed-up code) I had to invent and write myself. You wont hear people like me complaining, "Why don't you guys work harder to make our lives better." I'll change the world to conform to my own needs, thank you very much, at least until DRM arrived. DRM destroys my ability to help myself, and I can't even begin to tell you how much that pisses me off.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell