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
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.
No he's right and he's doing the right thing.
Consider that there is going to be no DRM in the HTML5 spec itself, just negotiation channels for it. So if you want DRM there will have to be closed-source client-side apps in either case. Therefore, why condone it through support of the negotiation channels? All it could do is ease the spread and development of DRM apps.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Stallman is right on this. The W3C should not endorse DRM. If that means that it requires Flash for certain things, then certain companies have to be OK with using Flash to display their content to their customers. The W3C shouldn't endorse DRM, that is a battle that deserves to be fought.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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
As soon as the publishers get a foot in the door, everything will be a rental with a limited lifespan.
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.
Oh shut up - taking a pass on DRM is not "pick your battles carefully". Flash and Silverlight are dying on their own because they don't run, or run barely, on the current generation of smart phones, tablets, and ... wait for it ... smart TV's. The content distributors desperately need standardisation because supporting hundreds of device types and dozens of plug-in technologies is a pain in the neck. The problem is they've chosen to outsource the problem by making browser vendors write the proprietary DRM plug-ins for them. Instead of simply adopting the existing specifications for Internet video formats and protocols. Everything they want to do can already be done with AVI/MP4/etc together with HTTP/RTP and a "video" tag in HTML. Everything that is except spy on users and take away people's ability to enjoy the content on a whim. If we resist DRM, they'll either have to adopt open standards or they'll have no business model at all.
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!
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.
Because there will be a common DRM negotiation protocol among all browsers. I want those DRM developers to work hard to make their shitty plugins work, not provide a universal API for them.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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.
It's not about me, Flamey McTrollerson. The W3C exists to promote open standards. DRM by definition is not open. Look over this page and tell me which of these points relates to the W3C endorsing DRM:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission
DRM is a choice for the market to make, not the open standards body. If someone wants to sell your coveted program on a DRM-laden DVD, great, go out and buy it. But don't standardize that bullshit on the open web.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
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.
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