DRM In HTML5 — Better Than the Alternative?

Underholdning writes "DRM is coming to HTML5. The W3C published a working draft yesterday of the framework that will support the use of DRM-protected media. Ars Technica's Peter Bright reports on it with an article claiming that DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open web, not a defeat. Bright argues that if HTML5 does not support DRM, then content providers will move their content away from open standards and implement it with native apps — abandoning the web in the process. Quoting: 'Keeping it out of W3C might have been a moral victory, but its practical implications would sit between slim and none. It doesn't matter if browsers implement "W3C EME" or "non-W3C EME" if the technology and its capabilities are identical. ... Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely. Want to send DRM-protected video to an iPhone? "There's an app for that." Native applications on iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and Windows 8 can all implement DRM, with some platforms, such as Android and Windows 8, even offering various APIs and features to assist this.'"

Comments

What's the difference?

[Hatta]

Neither can be used on a free platform, so what's the difference? How are platform specific encryption modules any better than platform specific native apps?

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Browser components, surprising how many applications require them. once this is in will it create other unforseen content controls?
Also I can't wait for the first client side security vulnerability.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article was about implementing a DRM standard into HTML5. As far as I can tell, there was nothing about platform specific encryption modules.

Re:What's the difference?

[gl4ss]

Browser components, surprising how many applications require them. once this is in will it create other unforseen content controls?
Also I can't wait for the first client side security vulnerability.

the way I see the html5 drm thing right now is like this: some dudes who would gain something from it are pushing it after having a conversation that went like: "ah darn it, ain'nt anyone doing plugins anymore, 'dem plugins have soo bad reputation. We should design a platform for running closed source code inside browser! and make it html5! and with hooks!"

point being, I don't see it fixing anything in the current system. they could just implement plugins with the old plugin system for things they want to run closed..

Re:What's the difference?

[blackiner]

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-encrypted-media-20130510/#introduction

Pretty much everything in the picture is standardized and can be implemented by any browser, but the Content Decryption Module (CDM) can be anything, and is selected by keySystem from the DOM data. There is a single reference system that merely decrypts blocks of the stream. But you can pretty much just dump the decrypted blocks into a file. I'm sure all this will really accomplish is requiring people to download proprietary CDMs, or only allow browsers that ship with them like IE or Chrome to play content. This is a shit solution.

Re:What's the difference?

[magic maverick]

Exactly. I won't be able to see restricted media on my system anyway. Because DRM - digital restrictions management - don't work without locking you out. It doesn't matter if it's an "open standard" or not. And, as noted in the article, this HTML5 thingy doesn't even provide an open standard for DRM. It provides hooks. That's it. The DRM will still be closed, will still not be a standard, and will still probably not run on open systems (most desktop Linux).

And the W3C should have taken the pragmatic approach and said, "we don't want DRM to be associated with us, as it will tarnish our good name".

This "standard" won't make things any better, because there will still need to be a closed blob to decrypt the restricted media. Whether it's viewable via a web browser, or not, is irrelevant.

Re:What's the difference?

[gl4ss]

The article was about implementing a DRM standard into HTML5. As far as I can tell, there was nothing about platform specific encryption modules.

either they're closed and the system that shows them is closed or it's not drm.

whippi doo.

Re:What's the difference?

[meustrus]

Neither can be used on a free platform, so what's the difference? How are platform specific encryption modules any better than platform specific native apps?

The point is that it's not any worse. Platform-specific decryption modules may not be any better than native apps if you want everything you use to be open-source, but they have the practical advantage that if you don't need Flash or Silverlight to decrypt it anymore, you can just use a web browser. The interface is consistent and cheaper to build than having to make a native app for every platform instead of just recompiling the decryption module.

Re:What's the difference?

[meustrus]

Except with W3C standardization, you can make 1 plugin for all browsers instead of having to navigate the interfaces for IE, Mozilla, and Webkit, and probably just completely ignore all of the less popular browsers like Opera and Konqueror (don't think that everybody using Linux is willing to forego closed-source device drivers and software packages for ideological reasons and just not get decent graphics performance or Flash videos).

Re:What's the difference?

[meustrus]

The W3C is not concerned with free software. It's concerned with standardizing browser features so that the same web page will work the same in IE as it does in Firefox as it does in Chrome as it does in whatever other browser somebody made that conforms to the standard. The W3C would like to see that everything done on the internet is implemented in the web browser, including any proprietary code necessary to render a web site (such as minified JavaScript). The W3C specifically opposes the kind of Internet we had when lots of web sites used Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered ActiveX in IE5 because it had all the features they needed.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheaper for the likes of netflix... it's not fucking cheaper for me.

DRM in the browser requires A CLOSED SOURCE browser or it doesn't work - otherwise the browser can simply redirect the output stripping off the DRM.

So no.. it's a lot fucking worse. Why should we standardise their breakage? If they want DRM... let THEM carry the costs and problems.

Re:What's the difference?

[Qwavel]

It's about choice. If the web does not have DRM then consumers can only use services like Netflix where Netflix deigns to create an app (plug-ins are on their way out). That will generally be the few dominant platforms.

If DRM is a standardized part of the web then anyone with a standards compliant browser can access those services. This isn't guaranteed - there are various ways that Netflix (etc.) could still stop that from happening, but their support of this standard suggests that they actually want me to be able to use their service on my Playbook.

I want the choice to be able to stray beyond the dominant platforms and still use Netflix.

Re:What's the difference?

[blackiner]

And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The W3C is not concerned with free software. It's concerned with standardizing browser features so that the same web page will work the same in IE as it does in Firefox as it does in Chrome as it does in whatever other browser somebody made that conforms to the standard. The W3C would like to see that everything done on the internet is implemented in the web browser, including any proprietary code necessary to render a web site (such as minified JavaScript). The W3C specifically opposes the kind of Internet we had when lots of web sites used Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered ActiveX in IE5 because it had all the features they needed.

And now we will have a web dominated by tens of CDMs for every website in existence. And don't believe for a moment that the CDMs are static. Every once in a while you will have to get updated CDMs (for your benefit obviously) or no more content for you. And when an update suddenly eliminates support for the platform you're using ? Don't think that will happen ? How innocent you are.
The W3C with this incredibly stupid decision has opened up pandora's box. If you thought the web was broken in the IE6 days you've seen nothing at all. What's coming down the road is 10 times as worse.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

how?
there is not a standard for plug-ins, just for using them to do drm, soo no still have non-standard platform specific rubbish.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

You will not be able to view their content but only that aspect of it. You would still be able to view the rest of the site. Some sites will be only protected content but many will be a mix and some may have only a few protected items. Incorporating DRM into the standard will make it more likely that companies will create web-based solutions instead of app-based solutions.

Personally I would not want to have apps. They are a pain to manage, they need to be updated and they are platform specific. It may run on a device I have now but not the next one I have. I run a much better chance of having an HTML5 page working on current and new devices.

DRM is a royal pain and detrimental to all in the long run. That includes the providers but they rarely look at it in the short term. They also have to answer to others with their own agenda. Keeping it out of HTML5 also makes no sense in the long run either.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

How will this be different with EME?

With EME now you have ActiveX build in the Web. And a web browser will not be standard compliant if it can't access ActiveX.
(replace ActiveX with the Content Decryption Module (CDM) of EME).

Because all what EME is doing is to standardize an API to access those CDMs (aka proprietary binary blobs, Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered blobs).

Re:What's the difference?

[Cajun Hell]

If the web does not have DRM then consumers can only use services like Netflix where Netflix deigns to create an app (plug-ins are on their way out).

But what is being proposed, is identical to that. Consumers will only be able to use services like Netflix where Netflix deigns to create an implementation of their proprietary EME plugin.

If DRM is a standardized part of the web then anyone with a standards compliant browser can access those services.

This is where the confusion lies. Nobody is suggesting making DRM itself a standardized part of the web; you're rooting for a side which isn't in the fight. They're talking about making a non-standard DRM component (something just as unportable as Flash and Silverlight, and subject to its ONE CREATOR'S whims) have standard API for the browser to use. This is a tiny little issue; Flash already used a defacto-standard API for the browser to inferface with. Such a defacto interface isn't maybe as good as a well-described one, so you could see this new API as a minor step forward, but it comes with the cost of legitimizing and endorsing something which is just completely ridiculous.

I want the choice to be able to stray beyond the dominant platforms and still use Netflix.

That is not being offered by this HTML5 compromise, and it won't get you closer to that. If Netflix, as the one and only party in the world who will have the closed trade secret to make the Netflix decrypter, should decide to ever see fit to allow the specific non-dominant platform that you're thinking of, to join the list of platforms they support by making a Netflix plugin for it, they're just as likely to decide to allow an app on that platform.

Allowing you to watch Netflix, is not something that is being standardized. That aspect would remain as closed as Flash's DRM. This is how all DRM must always be. The only way Netflix can ever be standardized such that you will be permitted to use it on a device of your choosing, is if they drop the DRM.

Or if they were to standardize the DRM itself, I suppose that would work. But they wouldn't want to do that, since the whole point of DRM is to keep people from implementing it! :-)

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

So you'll still need one plugin for Windows, one for OS X, one for iOS, one for Android, one for Windows RT, etc. (oh and none for Linux.) And then you'll have a multitude of others made by various and sundry companies of varying skill.

I expect that if this takes hold, malware will spread like never seen.

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

It's about choice. If the web does not have DRM then consumers can only use services like Netflix where Netflix deigns to create an app (plug-ins are on their way out). That will generally be the few dominant platforms.

It will be the same with this, because instead of having to compile their app for a platform they'll have to compile their EME module.

If DRM is a standardized part of the web then anyone with a standards compliant browser can access those services.

Unless they're on an unsupported platform.

their support of this standard suggests that they actually want me to be able to use their service on my Playbook.

I suspect you won't get Netflix on your Playbook unless Blackberry negotiates a licensing agreement with Netflix for their EME module.

I want the choice to be able to stray beyond the dominant platforms and still use Netflix.

And I sincerely doubt you will. This is about taking control, not granting you choice.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The W3C would like to see that everything done on the internet is implemented in the web browser, including any proprietary code necessary to render a web site (such as minified JavaScript).

I'm sure they would!

The W3C specifically opposes the kind of Internet we had when lots of web sites used Microsoft-owned patent-encumbered ActiveX in IE5 because it had all the features they needed.

And what, pray tell, is the practical difference between a binary/closed CDM that runs content in a W3C-approved fashion, and what you just described?

From the end user's point of view, it's still running platform-specific user-hostile code that's indistinguishable from malware. That this specific means by which a web browser can be coaxed into running user-hostile code happens to be one in which the W3C still feels relevant may be great for the W3C, but I see no benefit to the end user.

My hardware, my software, my system, my rules. Not MAFIAA's rules. And if W3C prefers to be "relevant" to MAFIAA than to "me", then not W3C's rules either.

If that means everyone needs to write "apps" instead of "for the web", that's a good thing. Apps suck, that's the point. The sooner MAFIAA figures that out, is the sooner we can have real video (not RealVideo(tm)) on the web. You can have iTunes, or you can have a web store that sells unencumbered MP3s. W3C is taking us down the iTunes road: if browsers natively supported DRM for music, MP3-based music stores would never have existed, because you'd just use Amazon's CDM, eMusic's CDM, etc... "through the web". Fuck. That. Noise.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want for the W3C to make it easy for ***holes to treat me as a criminal, while screwing over legal use, and ensuring that only 'damaged goods' fall into the public domain at the end of the copyright period. Because that is EXACTLY what DRM does.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, this is a vector for attacks if it's too automated. Anyone will be able to ask the user to install their fancy codec/video player, and dumb users will let them. Sure, the browser won't be compromised, but the user's system sure will be.

What's the difference between that and existing plugins? Not much, really. This just stands to make the download and installation of such codecs even easier.. it's just a click away. And we all know the dimmest bulbs are the ones that are the problem, not the people who know better than to install any old thing the web asks them to.

Re:What's the difference?

[Jonah Hex]

The main problem I see with the "provide hooks to a DRM plugin" is this opens the door wide to malicious plugin installation using standardized dialogs and a process the end user will become familiar with. Reminds me of the issues Windows Media Player had (or might still even have) with files demanding a special codec/DRM. And what if someone spoofs Netflix or Hulu, replacing their plugin with a malicious one... it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out over the next few years. - HEX

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interface is consistent and cheaper to build than having to make a native app for every platform instead of just recompiling the decryption module.

No, the spec only defines a few JavaScript APIs. It doesn't specify the interface between the browser and the CDM, so there's no guarantee that a CDM that works in IE will work in Firefox or Chrome, even on the same OS. It also doesn't provide an abstraction layer for OS facilities, so porting the module to multiple OSes is going to require code changes, not "just recompiling".

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between that and existing plugins? Not much, really.

Except that with Flash or Silverlight, you just have to download one blob (each) from a company that you trust (maybe), and untrusted Flash or Silverlight content has limited access to your machine and can't do any real damage (well, at least in theory).

Re:What's the difference?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"Also I can't wait for the first client side security vulnerability."
We must all make sure this happens..

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Because ActiveX didn't have cross browser/cross platform hooks or ways of working that way. There was no way for an ActiveX control to work on a mac or unix.

ActiveX was an API, and while open(ish), you couldn't implement it without carrying forward a ton of proprietary stuff (COM).

Re:What's the difference?

[jbolden]

How don't you have malicious plugin installation today? I have to make choices about browser based plugins and extensions all the time on safari / chrome / firefox...

Re:What's the difference?

[Jane Q. Public]

"And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress???"

There. Fixed that for you.

For what it's worth, I agree. It has taken a while to shake out, but DRM, as a market concept, has been an almost complete failure. It simply doesn't stop people. If anything, it pisses people off and makes them more determined to break the DRM anyway.

Look at HDMI, and CSS (DVD encryption CSS, not the web page kind). They're totally broken. It took a while for the HDMI protection scheme to be broken, but a couple of years ago a guy showed how it could be done with off-the-shelf tools, in a couple of days. (And now that the technique is known, it can be done by a hobbyist in a few minutes.) CSS was broken in even less time with DeCSS by "DVD Jon".

Yet the industries are still using these broken technologies, and saddling consumers with the totally worthless cost.

This has no place in an "open standard". I say get rid of it, and stop coddling the clueless, protectionist, blindly greedy corporations.

Re:What's the difference?

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: "it can be done by a hobbyist in a few minutes" should be "it can be set up by a hobbyist in a few minutes, and done at will".

Re:What's the difference?

[allo]

nope. because part of html5 means, no NS-plugin-interface anymore, but each browser needs to implement it. But the real DRM module implementing the encryption cannot be opensource, so goodbye firefox, chromium, etc.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

So I ask again, what is the difference with EME? Sounds like you describe EME in detail.

EME is an API, and while open(ish), you can not implement it without carrying forward a ton of proprietary stuff (CDM).
Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html

The EME proposal don't even make it mandatory to return the decrypted content back to the browser.
"CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or rendered them directly."
Meaning, the CDM can just open a third application to show you the "protected" content.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

The CDM isn't tied to a particular OS.
The CDM isn't necessarily proprietary.
CDM code can be cross platform (different OSes and different processors (Intel/ARM)).
Additionally, the media will play within the context of the web page and should follow standard markup (styles, width, height, z-index, etc).

Re:What's the difference?

[gl4ss]

Surely you mean one for Windows/x86 (oh, and maybe x64 if we're generous), and one for iOS/ARMv7 (oh, and maybe Android/ARMv7 if we're generous). OS X? WinRT? What's that? May be you'll even say (hah!) Linux?

You'll just have to hope they're not too OS specific, so may be x86 and ARMv7 will (mostly) cover it all and won't need much fucking around to make it work on all platforms. Maybe they'll even be exploit-compatible!

they will have to be os specific and tie into the graphical display system for them to be considered effective at all. basically it can not offer any advantage over silverlight/flash/quicktime type of scenario which we are in now. you'll have a closed plugin which displays the drm protected site.

and users WILL NOT install specific plugins for specific random sites and users will be told not to install them. because it's just common sense. in effect that would not be any different than installing specific apps for specific sites.

oh and to the "but you'll only need 1 plugin for all browsers on the system" well that's also the system we already are in - minus browser specific bugs/"features".

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

The W3C is not concerned with free software. It's concerned with standardizing browser features so that the same web page will work the same in IE as it does in Firefox as it does in Chrome as it does in whatever other browser somebody made that conforms to the standard.

This is just it. That web page on Firefox Linux Will Not work the same as it does in IE as it does in Chrome in Windows. Who in their right mind would want to return to the web where a different plugin is needed for every streaming site? Who cares that every browser will have standard hooks if only the big platforms are supported!?

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

I see you quoted "CDM implementations may return decrypted frames or rendered them directly.", however, that did not come from the specification, so I'm not sure where you got it from.

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

The CDM isn't tied to a particular OS.

Any given CDM is. Unless you expect a Windows binary to run on OS X or Linux.

The CDM isn't necessarily proprietary.

Yes it is. Oh sure, you could make it open source but you'll never get the sources for one that does anything useful.

the media will play within the context of the web page and should follow standard markup (styles, width, height, z-index, etc).

Much like how flash does now, where it's given a spot on the page but is otherwise independent of the browser.

Zero improvement.

Re:What's the difference?

[Jonah Hex]

All the time? I install Java and Flash, both from the companies websites, and never install anything that pops up in my browser which isn't very often. For multimedia codecs I use a curated package of codecs and once again ignore/delete anything else that gives me a "must visit website to view this file" since it's most likely fake. With proper ad blocking in Firefox/Chrome I get hardly any "helpful reminders to upgrade/install" while browsing the web, and Java/Flash releases are also not "all the time". - HEX

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Additionally, since the function of the CDM is for content decryption, I'm not even sure how it would be reasonable to expect it to understand the varying codecs itself to render a frame. Decoding a video frame would be the responsibility of the media element itself, not the CDM.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Any given CDM is. Unless you expect a Windows binary to run on OS X or Linux.

Perhaps, but that is still an improvement from not being able to run any CDM on OS/X or linux, ever because they don't implement COM which ActiveX relies on.

Yes it is. Oh sure, you could make it open source but you'll never get the sources for one that does anything useful.

Again, perhaps. Unless the CDM hands off the actual decryption process to a lower level API like a TPM.

Much like how flash does now, where it's given a spot on the page but is otherwise independent of the browser.

Zero improvement.

Flash doesn't play content through the standard media elements. <video>,<audio>

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

Decoding a video frame would be the responsibility of the media element itself, not the CDM.

The CDM can impose all sorts of requirements on the host system, such as demanding things like PVP and PAP. That's one reason I expect there to be virtually no CDMs available for Linux.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Ah I see it came from the illustration. My bad. I see that they are envisioning CDMs that do more than just decrypt as well, and take over part of the media stack as well, which would be bad.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Yes, I didn't see the the part where they allow CDMs to be able to take over parts of the media stack as well as just decrypt.

Re:What's the difference?

[Darinbob]

If they all move to proprietary apps away from open standards, then what's the problem? It'll be like back when everything was quicktime and you had to upgrade weekly to get the right version necessary to play that week's videos. The result in that case was that smart people learned to just not watch the stupid videos. If youtube dies from not having DRM in HTML then that sounds like a very good thing to me.

Re:What's the difference?

[Neuroelectronic]

platform specific rubbish.

You mean platform independent 3rd party control here.

Re:What's the difference?

[hairyfeet]

Because it lets the Apple ifanboys wave the "Its open!" flag while ignoring its a patent and copyright DRM minefield, just like H.264 which they screamed "Its open!" about last time?

Lets be honest guys, we ALL know who did this, its the same company that got an open codec banned for the patent trolling H.264...Apple. what is sad is the same devs that screamed bloody murder about MSFT and their hamfisted IE centric bullshit will happily kiss the iRing and line up to do what Apple wants because they are just drooling at the thought of iMoney.

This is one place where devs CAN STOP THIS, by simply refusing to support HTML V5 as long as its broken. Refuse to use it with your websites, refuse to add any of its features, tell the W3C they can go walk off a cliff before you'll give an inch.

But sadly we all know what is gonna REALLY happen, Apple will release an iToy that only supports HTML V5 and they'll say "Bow down bitches, or no iStore for you BWA HA HA HA!" and devs will come crawling to kiss the ring while MSFT lurks like Renfield in the back, happy to take the scraps.

Re:What's the difference?

[flargleblarg]

I don't think it's true that DRM in the browser requires a closed-source browser. If the content provider encrypted their content on a per-stream, per-user, per-viewing basis, then you could not simply redirect or strip off the DRM. You would atually need to purchase a one-use decryption key from the content provider.

Now, that doesn't prevent you from recording the content and redistributing it DRM-free, but certainly nothing in the above requires a closed-source model of any sort.

Re:What's the difference?

[flargleblarg]

You seem to be assuming that content decryption keys would be the same across all copies of a digitally downloaded item. I think that is a false assumption. If an upstream content provider encrypts each stream differently for different destinations (e.g., viewers), then it is irrelevant whether the DRM mechanism is implemented as closed-source or open-source software. You will need to know your unique key for that particular viewing in order to decrypt the content. The only thing open-source might buy you there is an easier time finding some algorithmic flaw in the encryption method. But that is highly doubtful, and even if it were to happen, the content provider could simply change the encryption method on you at any time to patch the hole.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the content provider encrypted their content on a per-stream, per-user, per-viewing basis

That's exactly how SSL works.

You would atually need to purchase a one-use decryption key from the content provider.

So you pay, and then the provider sends you the stream. No need for any DRM in that.

Now, that doesn't prevent you from recording the content and redistributing it DRM-free

If it doesn't prevent you from doing that (or at least attempt to prevent you) then it doesn't qualify as DRM in the first place.

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

that is still an improvement from not being able to run any CDM on OS/X or linux, ever because they don't implement COM which ActiveX relies on.

I thought about it a bit, and what I now expect to happen is that Apple, Google, and Microsoft will deliver CDMs for their platforms, and people will use them. Anyone not running Windows, iOS/OS X, or Android/Chrome OS will suddenly find the internet to be a very hostile place.

Unless the CDM hands off the actual decryption process to a lower level API like a TPM.

Except TPMs are horribly slow. There's a reason that Intel implemented AES in hardware.

Flash doesn't play content through the standard media elements

Oh so instead of using one tag you get to use another. Such a huge improvement. Not that any browser/OS other than those blessed by Hollywood will ever be able to use the tag at this rate.

Re:What's the difference?

[Microlith]

I didn't see the the part where they allow CDMs to be able to take over parts of the media stack as well as just decrypt.

I didn't see any restrictions whatsoever on CDMs. And they obviously can't allow the browser to touch uncompressed, decrypted data or someone will find a way to trivially dump it to disk.

Re:What's the difference?

[jbolden]

Yes those two and a few others as well. Players for music or video...

Re:What's the difference?

[Yvanhoe]

Agreed. I see the two alternatives as two different kind of defeats.

Re: What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boss: "Rewrite the site using HTML5 and this nifty new DRM module."

You: "No."

Boss: "I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to this guy who's just been reassigned to your former position."

See how quick and easy this was?

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Well someone will find a way to trivially dump it to disk anyhow, but I thought the plan was to allow the media element to hand over an encrypted stream to the CDM that would then return an unencrypted stream that they would then decode (or pass on to a codec) themselves and display it in the appropriate area. Which the EME illustration shows that's how they envision it as well, except for that pesky little dotted area they label "optional" that allows the CDM to apparently hook into or bypass the media stack and display it themselves directly. That sucks because then that means the CDM not only has to do it'd decryption, but it also has to understand the underlying codec as well. That's just going to lead to poorly implemented codecs buried inside CDMs, but knowing hollywood that is exactly what they will demand to happen. The "optional" part will be the norm.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been recording video subsea and can't capture it to the computer via HDMI to give the client clips. I have had the DVD-R/HDD recorders stop recording with an error that I am not allowed to copy copyrighted material. WTF?!? The camera is 2km down in the ocean. What copyrighted material? You can get practically any copyrighted material you want online. Meanwhile people with legitimate uses for video recording get F***ed over.

DRM is making equipment defective by design.

Re:What's the difference?

[makomk]

All the CDMs so far are tied to a particular OS and browser combination, and I don't think any of the browsers so far support any way of installing additional CDMs, nor does the spec require them to ever allow this. Right now ChromeOS only supports Google's Widevine DRM and nothing else, the beta version of IE support's Microsoft's PlayReady DRM and nothing else, presumably if Apple ever support it they'll use their own PlayFair DRM and nothing else...No two vendors have any DRM scheme in common, nor is there any reason to expect they ever will. This "standard" (pah!) is way more fragmented, proprietary and incompatible than Flash ever was.

Re:What's the difference?

[makomk]

Not really. The W3C hasn't standardized the interface between the browser plugin and the browser, and in fact browsers aren't required to have any API that allows plugins to register new CDMs at all and probably won't in most cases.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

Which comes with no surprise.
DRM is not about pirates, it's about controlling the media channels. Why would Google, Microsoft and Apple come together and make a DRM standard? If it's standard, neither Google nor Microsoft nor Apple can control the media channel.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

The whole DRM would be pretty useless if you would allow the web browser to render the decrypted video.
Open source web browsers like Firefox could just save the decrypted video stream in a file.
So I expect from EME will be just Flash now: a nice window in the web browser that plays the decrypted content.

Re: What's the difference?

[hairyfeet]

Then welcome to slavery as that can apply to just about any sentence. "Work like a dog for less than a living wage" No, "I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to this guy who's just been reassigned to your former position." See how easily that fits?

If everyone adopts YOUR attitude we might as well just go ahead and pull the plug on the WWW now, because it'll be "The Home Shopping Network, now with extra domestic spying and DRM!" in less time than it takes to say wage slave.

Re:What's the difference?

[Jonah Hex]

That's why I switched first to curated codec/player packages like CCCP, then to XBMC for my multimedia center with VLC for one off playing on other systems. I may get a notice that there is a new VLC, but I don't get random drive by codec upgrade alerts.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

Well even if it's more fragmented than flash, at least at some point we will be able to bury that abomination flash at some point now, and it should have much less security issues than flash ever had. Carrying around that code base was malware waiting to happen, and it never worked on any of the i-Devices.

Re:What's the difference?

[KingMotley]

With less security breaches, and it'll work on all devices, and without draining the battery.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

Did you ask your crystal ball or went to a fortune teller?

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

there is not a standard for plug-ins, just for using them to do drm, soo no still have non-standard platform specific rubbish.

which means you write a drm module for windows, for linux and for osx and it works in any standards-compliant browser without having to write browser *and* platform specific plugins.

Re:What's the difference?

[exomondo]

oh and to the "but you'll only need 1 plugin for all browsers on the system" well that's also the system we already are in - minus browser specific bugs/"features".

The difference is that instead of having the DRM module run inside Flash or Silverlight which in turn runs inside the browser you can eliminate Flash and Silverlight, which is much better.

Re:What's the difference?

[exomondo]

And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress.

How? As i understand it the purpose is to have a mechanism to allow any CDM - I don't see what makes you think Microsoft and Google would be the only DRM schemes.

Re:What's the difference?

[exomondo]

Content providers will develop the CDM for various platforms rather than encode/stream multiple versions of their content for multiple different CDMs on multiple different platforms. Fighting this at any level below the content provider is stupid and pointless anyway.

Re:What's the difference?

[exomondo]

it's about controlling the media channels.

No it isn't, content providers are the ones pushing this, just look at examples from EA and Ubisoft, those are absolutely nothing to do with controlling media channels and all about content providers controlling content.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the end user's point of view, it's still running platform-specific user-hostile code that's indistinguishable from malware.

from the end user's perspective in the vast majority of cases they don't even know or care about "user-hostile code".

My hardware, my software, my system, my rules. Not MAFIAA's rules. And if W3C prefers to be "relevant" to MAFIAA than to "me", then not W3C's rules either.

good, then there's no need to complain, the only thing on that list you forgot is "my choice". you don't want to play by their rules you don't get their content, sounds like a fine deal.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then either convince the content producers to not use DRM or come up with some platform-agnostic DRM implementation, but at least stop just being a whiny bitch, that accomplishes nothing.

Re:What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one place where devs CAN STOP THIS, by simply refusing to support HTML V5 as long as its broken.

but it isn't broken and i just don't use the features i don't like/need.

But sadly we all know what is gonna REALLY happen, Apple will release an iToy that only supports HTML V5

yeah you don't know the first thing about html, go away before you make more of a fool of yourself or tell me how exactly one would only support html5 and not other versions.

Re:What's the difference?

[devent]

EA and Ubisoft are not content creators, they are content distributors.
Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC.
They are all content distributors, i.e. publisher. This is all about controlling media channels.

Re:What's the difference?

[exomondo]

EA and Ubisoft are not content creators

Wrong, they are the content creators, even the games they don't produce directly in house are created by companies they own.

Also look at who is supporting the EME: Google, Microsoft, BBC.

Of course they would be supporting it, it's better than having all of this stuff run as an application within a plugin within the browser like is currently done with things like Flash and Silverlight. If a content creator does not wish to distribute their content with DRM then it won't be, attacking this at the media channel level is moronic, we have plenty of DRM-free channels yet they aren't utilized because content creators are the ones that make the choice to use DRM.

Re:What's the difference?

[meustrus]

Does an audio/video codec have access to anything in the underlying system? I mean, surely there will be bugs for buffer overflow, etc. but I would expect a DRM plugin to have less access to the computer than Flash, Silverlight, or even Javascript.

Re:What's the difference?

[allo]

what? I do not think you understood the problem. When i have the content, either as some content or as encrypted content + decryption keys + opensource-decryption-method, then i can save the content. The publishers do not want me to be able to save their streams.

Betteridge's law of headlines

[twocows]

No.

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines

[meustrus]

Betteridge's law does not apply in every situation. It applies to headlines questioning whether a factual statement is true or false, i.e. "Is Obama really a Muslim?" (obviously not, or else the headline would be "Obama is Really a Muslim"). It does not apply to headlines questioning values like "Obama's Faith - Does it Really Matter?" (if the headline answered that question, why would anyone read the article?)

Re:Betteridge's law of headlines

[allo]

And very well suited for this type of rhetoric question like in the article ... because the author doesn't provide any arguments, he is convinced of, so he puts a question in the title instead of a hypothesis (without questionmark)

Time to fork W3C

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to have a grass roots standards body which impletments the good works of standards bodies but chooses not to implement shill standards. Then grass roots software development can choose to use these standards rather than give in to the corruption of the standards process.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Anonymous Coward]

I have very mixed feelings about this decision from the W3C, but we've seen what happens when people go about things around them. Look at the nightmare that is HTML5. This idea that we don't needs static standards or well formed markup is insane.

That said, I think we need members in critical working groups that represent the people's interest rather than Microsoft and Google.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[loufoque]

HTML5 was already formed as the result of a fork of the W3C called the WHATWG.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Richard_at_work]

Translation - the standards bodies should do what I want and listen to to one else. What I want is more more important than what anyone else wants.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[westlake]

It would be nice to have a grass roots standards body which impletments the good works of standards bodies but chooses not to implement shill standards.

Now all you need is a product with mass market appeal and shelf space at Walmart which implements the geek's "grass roots" standards --- but can't play the Netflix, Amazon, Hulu or Google subscription video. Nothing Disney, Pixar or Marvel Comics.

No Downton Abbey, no Game of Thrones.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Microlith]

They seem intent on listening to a very, very tiny base when it comes to ramming EME through. Apparently what Hollywood wants is more important than what anyone else wants.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Richard_at_work]

No really, because having EME available and *you* as a developer not using them is exactly the same as EME not being standardised and *you* not using them.

The addition of EME to the spec in no way changes your position, whereas the lack of addition to the spec does affect another developers position. Not including EME negatively affects other developers who want to use it, while including EME doesn't affect other developers who don't want to use it.

If you cannot see the difference between those positions, then you need to ask yourself why.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Microlith]

having EME available and *you* as a developer not using them is exactly the same as EME not being standardised and *you* not using them.

Nope. I will undoubtedly be forced to use EME modules, not as a developer but as an end user. Of course, this is a redundant standard.

The addition of EME to the spec in no way changes your position, whereas the lack of addition to the spec does affect another developers position.

No it doesn't. It just means they have to use the existing plugin APIs. Or they have to do the work themselves instead of pushing a chunk off on browser vendors.

Not including EME negatively affects other developers who want to use it, while including EME doesn't affect other developers who don't want to use it.

Not including EME while pursuing a no-plugins approach to the web reduces attack surface. Including EME while deprecating Flash will probably increase attack surface and help do little more than spread malware while simultaneously not increasing the availability of the material these technologies are supposed to "protect" from us evil, criminal bastards.

If you cannot see the difference between those positions, then you need to ask yourself why.

I see why EME as a concept is redundant and hazardous, and why I'll probably end up forced to use it or sites will break, just like the bad old days of IE6.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Hentes]

The problem is that WHATWG wants to throw web standards out the window instead of coming up with a better alternative.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[jbolden]

Why would the people implementing web products listen to a standards body that didn't represent them? In any case w3c is fairly broad: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

Re:Time to fork W3C

[exomondo]

Apparently what Hollywood wants is more important than what anyone else wants.

Who is the 'anyone else' that are voicing their opinion to the W3C about this and what is the alternative that they are proposing?

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. I will undoubtedly be forced to use EME modules, not as a developer but as an end user. Of course, this is a redundant standard.

As are your posts, you provide no alternative (except the "open web" which we know isn't going to happen while content providers are hell-bent on DRM for their content), no suggestion that you are going to avoid DRM content or take a stand or anything and then you admit that in the end you will bow down and lick boot anyway.
People like you will have a whinge but will be ignored because ultimately your opinion does not matter and your actions (as you already said) will fall in line and not actively oppose things like EME anyway. Really what are you trying to do? You say how bad it all is then say you will use it anyway.

Re:Time to fork W3C

[Errol backfiring]

On the contrary. It was the W3C who announced there would never be an HTML5. It was the WHATWG who took over the task that the W3C bluntly refused.

Oh the horror!

[maxwell demon]

There would be content on the internet that is not on the web? Oh the horror! </sarcasm>

Seriously, I want them to provide their own programs for DRM-protected stuff. That stuff just doesn't belong on the web. After all, even if it were made with HTML5+DRM and accessed through web browsers, it would still not really be part of the web, because I could not just fire up any web browser and watch it; I'd first have to install their proprietary DRM. So what is the big difference, if I have to install some proprietary code anyway? If it's a separate program, I'll at least know up front that it's not part of the web.

Also, in my experience, native programs tend to have the better interfaces anyway.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always the same bullshit. Make it easy for us by making your lives harder.

It's long past the point where everyone should be telling the content barons to eat shit and die.

The rest of the world generates masses of traffic, money and innovation - far more than the thugs in the content industry.

Yet all we ever hear about is how everyone else should dance to the entertainment industry's tune.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Karganeth]

Why doesn't DRM-protected stuff belong on the web? I dare you to answer my question without resorting to meaningless tautologies (such as 'DRM stuff doesnt belong on the web because that's not what the web is!').

Re:Oh the horror!

[Motor]

You can put what you want on the web.

But why do you expect everyone else to pay the technical cost of it (the DRM infrastructure, lock in and lack of choice and innovation)?

If you want DRM... then you maintain your own infrastructure and the associated costs.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why DOES DRM-protected stuff belong on the web? I dare you to answer my question without resorting to meaningless tautologies (such as 'DRM stuff belongs on the web because that's what the web is!').

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some people want it there.

Your turn.

And before you answer with another clever response like "because some people don't want it there," keep in mind that statement is true of a lot web content. Does that really mean it doesn't belong there?

Re:Oh the horror!

[realityimpaired]

Without getting into philosophical arguments about the ethics of it, content-creators have a vested interest in wanting to preserve distribution rights for the product they are making. We can argue until we run out of breath about whether DRM is the right way for them to do it, about its technical limitations, etc., but the fact is that nobody has provided them with an alternative to DRM that they like, and we simply can't force them to adopt what we want them to do. To do so would be to run counter to the free speech argument that most people hold up as the reason they're opposed to DRM in the first place: they have a right to speak or not speak in whichever way they want.

Given that there's no way they're giving up on DRM in the current climate, we're left with another question: should that content be on the web or not? That's a question that you, the consumer, need to decide. Personally, I like Netflix, I subscribe to it, and I'm happy to pay for it, despite its being encumbered with DRM. I find i get good value from their service. To me, yes, they do belong on the web, and as long as there's consumers like me who believe that they should be allowed to pay their money for such a service, that service belongs on the web regardless of your individual ideology.

Now given the choice between an ecosystem where everybody has their proprietary apps and one where everybody uses the same app, I would happily take the second one. While the first method works fine for my Android phone, that's because Android has enough market penetration to actually be worth targetting. It's still a platform where not everybody has made the switch, but it's big enough that people are noticing it. The same cannot be said for my Linux-based laptop.

And that leaves me with a choice, as far as the laptop is concerned: I can give up on watching content like this on the laptop (not really an option), I can install Windows (which would require paying extra: the laptop came with Linux preinstalled and no license for Windows), or I can decide that allowing DRM into the web standard isn't that bad an idea, because it means a standard API for accessing the content and I don't have to worry about whether the provider will get around to building a specific client for my laptop.

I'd *like* it to be DRM-free, and some content is DRM-free (sites like youtube or blip.tv for example), I also recognize that there's content which isn't free that I want to be able to use. If you don't want it to have DRM, then I'll refer you back to my first paragraph, where you'll find the answer to how to get them to stop using it: give them something else that they like more.

Re:Oh the horror!

[lgw]

More than 1/3 of current internet traffic is DRMd video streams. It's a core part of the internet. And it will be done in the browser, the question is will it be done to a standard. If you long for the glory days of IE6, by all means drag us back to a place where the big players just ignore the W3C again - that was just so much fun the last time.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

but the fact is that nobody has provided them with an alternative to DRM that they like

How come it matters whether "they" like the proposed alternatives, but it doesn't matter whether the rest of us like their nasty DRM?

Re:Oh the horror!

[Microlith]

More than 1/3 of current internet traffic is DRMd video streams. It's a core part of the internet.

Internet != Web.

The web is just a subset of the internet.

And it will be done in the browser, the question is will it be done to a standard.

Why will it be done in the browser? Why must it? Why must browser vendors be subject to the demands of hostile media entities?

If you long for the glory days of IE6, by all means drag us back to a place where the big players just ignore the W3C again - that was just so much fun the last time.

On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're the ones putting out the content. Don't like it? Go view some other content.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM belongs on the web like 10,000 pound pimped out low-riding hummers belong on the highway. You may not like it, but if it has wheels and a license, it goes on the highway. If they try to take away his pimpmobile, your VW Bus is next.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

I note you didn't answer the question.

We shouldn't take on the their technical burden. We shouldn't make it easy for them to balkanise the web with DRM. If they like DRM... they can fucking well ante for the technical burden. Don't push it off onto everyone else by standardising something that no user has ever asked for.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some people want it there.

Some people want child pornography on the web.
Some people want hate speech on the web.
...
Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean the rest of us should help them.

Some people want DRM-free copies of those movies on the web. Are Hollywood going to help us get that?
If Hollywood doesn't want to help us get what we want, why should we help them?

Re:Oh the horror!

[jbolden]

I'm not sure where I stand on this But in the old days the web (really the internet since most of this was pre-web) was for the sharing of information and openness. DRM is fundamentally about selling information not sharing it. Its a bit late to talk about the days of the internet before business was on it. But I can see people wanting the open internet that existed say 20 years ago.

There were real gains and real loses.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people want child pornography on the web.
Some people want hate speech on the web.

Yes, because these are clearly in the same ballpark as DRM'd content that wouldn't exist unless the content providers had a means for generating revenue. What a ridiculous oversimplification. Not everyone likes DRM, but most don't care, and (unlike your examples) it is not illegal in most jurisdictions.

Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean the rest of us should help them.

True. How are you helping them? Just because someone doesn't want something, doesn't mean the rest of us should be prevented from helping those that do.

Some people want DRM-free copies of those movies on the web. Are Hollywood going to help us get that?
If Hollywood doesn't want to help us get what we want, why should we help them?

How are "we" helping Hollywood? If you don't like it, don't contribute to the development of that portion of the standard, and don't view the content.

Re:Oh the horror!

[allo]

the web is the subset of strongly interlinked freely available content. DRM content can be provided as part of the internet, but does not belong to the web.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Anonymous Coward]

the web is the subset of strongly interlinked freely available content. DRM content can be provided as part of the internet, but does not belong to the web.

How is this not exactly the meaningless tautology that GGGP dared you to avoid? ('DRM stuff doesnt belong on the web because that's not what the web is!')

Furthermore, where is this defined? Why is the case? Because you said so?

Re:Oh the horror!

[gl4ss]

More than 1/3 of current internet traffic is DRMd video streams. It's a core part of the internet. And it will be done in the browser, the question is will it be done to a standard. If you long for the glory days of IE6, by all means drag us back to a place where the big players just ignore the W3C again - that was just so much fun the last time.

yeah so 1/3 of current internet traffic is already pretty much delivered in the fashion this new proposal is about.
which makes it's redundant. I have never watched netflix outside the browser - even if I'm well aware that I'm watching it through a plugin and can not watch it on browser on just any device anywhere that has a web browser. this situation would not change with the new proposal one bit! not one bit!

if they would like to make a new standard for plugins that's better then the really, really old one then fine, I'm all for that, but labeling it as a drm support scheme is just fucking stupid, misleading and even sounds just downright malicious in the way that you have to ask yourself are these people trying to score a job at netflix at the expense of w3c? because it's really not something netflix needs.

let's take the situation with windows phone or windows rt into the play: you need to have an app to watch netflix(or equivalent). why? because ms fucks didn't implement their drm plugin in the browser on those devices. html5 having a new plugin system or not doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they chose to ignore implementing their own old plugin that the netflix site uses.

Re:Oh the horror!

[kermidge]

As an aside, I realize you are speaking in general terms, and you may already be aware of this, but one can indeed watch stuff from Netflix on a Linux desktop, at least if it's Ubuntu. See compholio.com and
https://launchpad.net/~ehoover/+archive/compholio/

Works fine on my Ubuntu 13.04 64-bit desktop, anyway. Before I had to watch from within an XP VM under VirtualBox, which does work, just with less screen space available, leastways how I set it up. Don't know if it will work on your laptop's distro, tho. I've also used the compholio setup on 12.10 and 12.04.

Re:Oh the horror!

[maxwell demon]

So you propose to change all roads just so that your new 10,000 pound pimped out low-riding hummer can comfortably drive on it because you cannot comfortably enough drive with it on the current standard roads?

Of course we cannot (and should not) forbid people to put DRMed stuff on the web. But we also shouldn't support them doing so. Especially if that comes at extra cost for everyone else (including those who have no interest in the content at all, DRMed or not).

Re:Oh the horror!

[lgw]

Why must it? Why must browser vendors be subject to the demands of hostile media entities?

Why should a vendor make a product that it's customers want to use? Are you really saying "the MPAA makes people jump through silly hoops to watch video, and that's evil, so the only good course for HTML is to make people jump through silly hoops to watch video"?

Re:Oh the horror!

[lgw]

yeah so 1/3 of current internet traffic is already pretty much delivered in the fashion this new proposal is about. which makes it's redundant

Just so you know - that's exactly what a technical standard does, for the most part: document what everyone is already doing. Standards committees are slow. Most technical standards are basically obsolete by the time they complete the final ANSI/ISO approval process, it takes so long.

if they would like to make a new standard for plugins that's better then the really, really old one then fine, I'm all for that,

The way in which it would be better is that it would be standard: everyone doing what they do today, except with a common interface.

Re:Oh the horror!

[exomondo]

On the contrary, EME will reintroduce those days by causing people to make stupid assumptions about what CDMs the users have available and anyone not on those platforms or using those browsers will just be told "upgrade your browser or OS to $modern OS! Made for $BROWSER/$OS!" Just like in the bad old days of IE6.

Yeah because we're not already there with needing a platform-specific app or for Flash or Silverlight to be available on the platform, how exactly do you think this is done now? What do you propose as an alternative?

Re:Oh the horror!

[exomondo]

But why do you expect everyone else to pay the technical cost of it (the DRM infrastructure, lock in and lack of choice and innovation)?

What are you on about? This is just an alternative to the current system of having a specific app (whether it is native or within a runtime environment which then runs within the browser like Flash or Silverlight) where you now just have a module that the browser calls out to for decoding the stream. Nobody is having to pay the cost of maintaining DRM infrastructure or lock in or lack of choice or innovation, it's no different to what to we have now except we get rid of the additional layers like Flash.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Motor]

You've put the layer into the browser... and insisted that the browser be closed source.

And that's not pushing the infrastructure onto us?

Not thought this through have you?

Re:Oh the horror!

[exomondo]

You've put the layer into the browser... and insisted that the browser be closed source.

Wrong, i think you need to go back and understand what this is, the only thing in the browser are the API calls to an external CDM. And you're also wrong about the browser being closed source, don't know where you're getting that from but it's incorrect. Perhaps you should give an explanation of exactly what you think is going on, because based on what you're saying you either haven't read up on this or you have completely misunderstood it.

Re:Oh the horror!

[Motor]

No... I'm right.

Try this

You need to look at what this scheme actually is... not what they say it is.

It's standardising breakage... as I've already said, let the content companies and their flunkies do their own work. It shouldn't be part of HTML 5 and it is fundamentally at odds with open source browsers.

Re:Oh the horror!

[exomondo]

No... I'm right.

Try this

That is only if there is a case where the media stack isn't overtaken and the frames are decrypted by the CDM and returned to the browser but the content producer has some requirement over protecting that pipeline too, the answer is for the CDM to also provide the container. You don't need to go closed-source.

It's standardising breakage... as I've already said, let the content companies and their flunkies do their own work. It shouldn't be part of HTML 5 and it is fundamentally at odds with open source browsers.

It's like any other plugin, just standardizing a plugin interface and not requiring an application to run in a whole platform like Flash or Silverlight which then runs in the browser. None of the DRM is part of HTML5.

We're about to find out

[Anonymous Coward]

if something can be simultaneously good the "the web" and bad for users of the web.
If you think you have to stunt a free and open platform in order to save it, you're doing it wrong.

it should be standard

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an increasing amount of content that you can't view without DRM support, and people want to view this content. This should be enabled in the HTML standard, even if the plugins have to be platform specific.

It's only going more in this direction in the future. I have a cousin who works for a major news agency to remain unnamed here, and there is a movement afoot in the news world to investigate DRM for protecting online news content. There is a realization that they cannot keep giving it away forever. There have been a few initial experiments with paywalls on some news sites, but not DRM per se. DRM is a big thing now though in terms of what is wanted going forward. So either this can use the Web, or as TFA says, it will move off the web entirely.

Either the Web has to keep up, or it will become less and less relevant to modern computing. Not overnight of course, but times change. At one point, if you told people the Web would supplant Gopher, they just laughed.

Re:it should be standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, apps are already well on the way to replacing the web. It isn't some hypothetical future, it's happening right now in front of your eyes

Re:it should be standard

[Nerdfest]

It will continue to happen whether there is an open standard or not. Look what Apple did with XMPP and SIP, making FaceTime and iMessage by adding proprietary extensions. It's bad for everyone who isn't a major corporation, and certainly very bad for 'consumers'..

Re:it should be standard

[Microlith]

This should be enabled in the HTML standard, even if the plugins have to be platform specific.

Why?

It's only going more in this direction in the future.

Then things will only get worse.

have a cousin who works for a major news agency to remain unnamed here, and there is a movement afoot in the news world to investigate DRM for protecting online news content. There is a realization that they cannot keep giving it away forever.

So destroy web browsers and force them to betray their users and treat them as criminals?

DRM is a big thing now though in terms of what is wanted going forward.

Fuck them. People are bitching on this site about end users having entitlement complexes, what about media companies that feel entitled to have end user's systems betray their owner for the sake of their bottom line.

Either the Web has to keep up, or it will become less and less relevant to modern computing.

Or maybe it'll become more like it was originally, before the commercial interests started moving in and tried to turn it into TV 2.0.

Re:it should be standard

[GameboyRMH]

Either the Web has to keep up, or it will become less and less relevant to modern computing. Not overnight of course, but times change. At one point, if you told people the Web would supplant Gopher, they just laughed.

So the web has to become the enemy to beat the enemy...

This was a moral loss and no practical gain.

Re:it should be standard

[MrL0G1C]

There's an increasing amount of content that you can't view without DRM support

I don't want that content if it is ruined by DRM.

and there is a movement afoot in the news world to investigate DRM for protecting online news content.

They are a bunch of twisting lying agenda driven scumbags who concentrate on crime and terrorism far too much anyway, let them destroy themselves with DRM and perhaps something better will emerge.

Money talks, few walk

[Anonymous Coward]

The W3C saw the writing on the wall: add DRM compatibility to HTML5 or watch it become irrelevant as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and the other big players form their own consortium and go to work on the next iteration of the web.

I'm reminded of the Boston Marathon, which flew the banner of amateur athletics into the 1980's and was a holdout in refusing to offer prize money or appearance fees, other than transportation and lodging expenses. The elite runners abandoned Boston in favor of other races that did offer money, and in 1985 there was exactly one elite runner on the men's side. Geoff Smith, the previous year's winner, started off the race a blistering pace and looked like he was going to obliterate the course record. No other runners were in sight of him. Then at mile 19 or 20 he cramped up, and soon he started walking. The funny thing is that he not only won the race that year, but the second place finisher (an amateur runner from Southern Cal.) finished a couple minutes behind him. As Smith walked the finish line he shrugged, as if to say, "yeah I shouldn't have won, but what was I supposed to do?"

The brass got the message. The next year, prize money was offered and the elite runners were back.

DRM should not be standardized

[mounthood]

Maybe this will help:
1. Open and Standardized is good.
2. DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.)
3. DRM can be Standardized with HTML5 extensions.

The problem is confusing point one with the FOSS attitude of wanting systems that are open. Standardization is not advocated by any open source group or in any open license. Standardization is an artifact commonly associated with free/open systems, but it's presence doesn't mean the system is free or open.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[meustrus]

Standardization, not openness, is the primary goal of the W3C.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[devent]

EME is not a standard of DRM. EME is a standard to access DRM via API. That is a very big difference.
_If_ EME would be a standard of DRM, then anyone could implement the DRM and see the videos.

But EME just make the API standard do access DRM to decrypt the content. DRM can not be standardized, it's the very nature of DRM.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely wrong on #2. DRM can be implemented with open code. Perhaps you need to learn a little about cryptography and key exchanges? Just because some companies chose to use proprietary methods doesn't mean locking content can't be done with 100% source code available. It's all in the keys.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[VortexCortex]

Maybe this will help: 1. Open and Standardized is good. 2. DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.) 3. DRM can be Standardized with HTML5 extensions.

The problem is confusing point one with the FOSS attitude of wanting systems that are open. Standardization is not advocated by any open source group or in any open license. Standardization is an artifact commonly associated with free/open systems, but it's presence doesn't mean the system is free or open.

1. Open and Standardized is good.
2. DRM does not work. (I have to see or hear the output.)
3. DRM can not work on my OS that I compiled myself, because I control MY computer. Hardware DRM must be invoked by software, I control all the software. In a virtualized system, I also control the hardware through the software.

The problem is ignoring point two, and trying to ramrod inherently non features into an otherwise point one compliant system, in ignorance of point three. This means the whole effort is wasted time spinning our wheels maintaining and implementing broken not useful features: One cracked hardware implementation virtualized and all the DRM that relies on it is cracked too. Thus creating the availability of non-DRMmed media. Ergo, all those who pay the processor cycles to view DRMmed content, or brain cycles to implement DRM in Open Standards are essentially just being taxed for no reason, while unlicensed users of the media are not affected in any way.

I am a scientist. If they can't prove the hypothesis that "DRM is beneficial" through open processes of repeatable experiments, reviewed by peers and validated by the scientific community, then it should stay the hell out of our Open Standards. Putting DRM in HTML5 isn't going to get the content anywhere it's not already being consumed.

Furthermore: If an Open Standard can not be implemented by Fully Open Software on Fully Open Hardware, then it's fucking CLOSED.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[MrEricSir]

DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.)

That depends how you define "open." There's no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have an open source DRM system, for example. And let's not forget that the entire point of this is to add an open standard for DRM.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[gl4ss]

DRM is not Open. (This is simply its nature.)

That depends how you define "open." There's no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have an open source DRM system, for example. And let's not forget that the entire point of this is to add an open standard for DRM.

well there is the tiny reason that if you can change the code to save the decoded data then the drm becomes just transport time cryptography...

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[Microlith]

There's no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have an open source DRM system, for example.

Of course, so long as you adopted the weakest meaning of the phrase "open source." But no DRM system in practice is open due to the need to hide secrets.

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Standardization used to be the primary gol of the W3C.

Nowadays I don't have a fucking idea of what is the goal of the W3C.

If you don't know or understand the difference between and Standard and a Open Standard, please ignore this comment,

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[Anonymous Coward]

If DRM is a variant of encryption, and you treat DRM as "non-open" because it uses encryption, then does not that logic also make SSL, PGP, GPG etc. "non-open"?

Re:DRM should not be standardized

[Anonymous Coward]

If DRM is a variant of encryption, and you treat DRM as "non-open" because it uses encryption

We're not treating DRM as non-open because it uses encryption, we're treating it as non-open because it tries to control what you can do with the data once you've decrypted it, and the only way to do that is to only allow "trusted" software to decrypt it - that is, software that acts in the content provider's interests rather than the user's.

This is retarded.

[jason777]

Have they not learned that DRM only hurts the honest people? The pirates will get their crappy content anyways. Just use normal regular video, and trust people. You will get a lot more profits in the long run.

Re:This is retarded.

[BasilBrush]

Have they not learned that DRM only hurts the honest people? The pirates will get their crappy content anyways.

This is a false dichotomy. Whilst there are people that only ever use legally acquired stuff at one end of the scale, and people that always pirate non-free stuff at the other end, the vast majority lie in the middle of those extremes, pirating if it's easy and the result is good enough for them, buying when that's easier, or has the quality they require and is within their budget.

DRM doesn't come free for the industry. It would be cheaper to ship without DRM than with. The areas where DRM doesn't help the media industry's bottom line, such as songs, has already been abandoned. Areas where they keep investing in DRM, they do so because it works well enough to raise their bottom line vs not doing it.

If it didn't work, they wouldn't put money into it.

Re:This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't just magically know the DRM is actually helping where it's still used. They would have to try some content without it first and see what happens.

Re:This is retarded.

[Entropius]

If it didn't work, they wouldn't put money into it.

If only this were true. I point you, for the most recent and egregious example, to Windows 8.

Re:This is retarded.

[Microlith]

hey do so because they think it works well enough to raise their bottom line vs not doing it.

FTFY. DRM has not actually been proven to work in any situation. There is only supposition and failures like PlaysForSure and pains in the ass like HDCP.

I suspect the TV/Movie groups are still pissing themselves just like they did back when the VCR, that industry destroying invention, first appeared and ruined them. Oh wait...

Re:This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

The areas where DRM doesn't help the media industry's bottom line, such as songs, has already been abandoned.

Well guess what, they still tried it. While people were discovering the convenience of having limitless DRM free music available with a search and a click, the visionaries in the music industry were hard at work adding root kits to music CDs.

Any argument resting on the intelligence and business smarts of the people calling the shots in the content industry is inherently worthless.

Re:This is retarded.

[BasilBrush]

A disappointing OS UI has nothing to do with the economics of applying DRM.

And yet, it's still fundamentally true with the economics of Windows. Microsoft wouldn't continue producing Windows versions if Windows didn't make them money. They've got a miss with this particular version, but they've had misses before and still made money on both that version itself and on subsequent versions.

Re:This is retarded.

[Microlith]

they've had misses before and still made money on both that version itself and on subsequent versions.

It must be wonderful to have such dominance in the market that no matter how bad you fuck up, you won't truly be punished for it.

Re:This is retarded.

[jbolden]

What does Windows 8 have to do with DRM? Windows was lightly protected before it is lightly protected now.

Re:This is retarded.

[Tom]

If it didn't work, they wouldn't put money into it.

Faulty assumption.

It doesn't have to work. They just need to believe it works. These are not the same things.

Re:This is retarded.

[BasilBrush]

And what? Some poster on Slashdot knows better? When they are the ones what have all the data. They're not blind here. They're not guessing. People here are.

Re:This is retarded.

[Microlith]

I see you've decided to make these media companies an authority to which you appeal.

Re:This is retarded.

[Tom]

Data doesn't always establish causality.

If product A is sold X times, but your market analysts say it should've sold Y then you don't know if your analysis is wrong or what of many factors contributed to the difference.

I had marketing in university. Even the experts in that field say that half of the marketing budget is pure waste, they could just as well burn the money. The problem is that they don't know (at least beforehand), which half.

Same here. The distributors only have one half of the data set - the data about the people who bought their product. They don't have the data on the people who didn't. If I don't buy movie A, only I know if it is because I plain didn't like it, or I didn't have the money, or there was a better movie that weekend, or the advertisement didn't reach me and I didn't know it was on, or I didn't because I found a torrent.

So no, they do not have all the data. They have data, and plenty of it, but it's still incomplete.

I do agree that most people here on /. have even less data, though.

Re:This is retarded.

[sixsixtysix]

They would have to try some content without it first and see what happens.

You mean like all the drm-free music that is currently being sold in record numbers?

Re:This is retarded.

[Neuroelectronic]

This is a false dichotomy.

Perhaps, but it has been demonstrated true by every iteration of DRM ever tried.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/19/229219/the-real-purpose-of-drm

Re:This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have the data, but do they communicate based on it? What if the data does not support the message, since we cannot see "the data"?

Other case: Plenty of companies buy Microsoft SharePoint and then try to figure out what to use it for. That does not mean they knew what they were doing. But if you look at "the data" they say that plenty of companies buy SharePoint, so it must be smart to do so, leading to even more companies buying it.

Re:This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's in the string I was replying to:

The areas where DRM doesn't help the media industry's bottom line, such as songs, has already been abandoned. Areas where they keep investing in DRM, they do so because it works well enough to raise their bottom line vs not doing it.

So they just buttmagically know which content needs DRM and which doesn't. They know they need it for video, without ever having tried publishing DRM-free.

They didn't just suddenly decide they didn't need DRM for music, they were pushed to it against their will by outside forces such as Apple.

Re:This is retarded.

[BasilBrush]

"This is a false dichotomy."
Perhaps, but it has been demonstrated true by every iteration of DRM ever tried.

Huh? How can a false dichotomy be true?

Then you link me to another slashdot story that includes the sentence:
"DRM is working really well in the video and book space."

It takes a different track about why it's working, but it agrees it's working. I'd say there's some truth in that angle, but it's a smaller element than the one I described.

Re:This is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide evidence to support your claim. I find I agree with Tom's viewpoint. The crucial piece of evidence is every DRM system ever to be created has been broken. Some take longer due to being a smaller target or otherwise managing to defuse interest in defeating the DRM (the PS3 DRM remained unbroken until the OtherOS functionality was removed). The BluRay DRM is something of a moving target, but all the revisions get broken some time after they appear. As such, DRM doesn't work, yet various companies continue to invest money there.

Without explicitly saying it...

[tdalbo92]

This push is because of Netflix. Now that they have to dump Silverlight, it's understandable that they wouldn't want to invest into a Flash-like solution just to have it happen again. Which means I'll *finally* get Netflix on Linux. I see this as a win for everyone but RMS.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means I'll *finally* get Netflix on Linux

How do you know? You'll require a CDM for your browser on Linux (CDMs are binary blobs). What's to say that Netflix wont choose an encryption scheme that has a Microsoft Windows only CDM?

The entire argument about "HTML5 with DRM" v's "Proprietary in-browser apps" is pointless: the way that CRMs are implemented means the distinction is utterly meaningless.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you won't get netflix on linux. The odds of anyone writing a CDM for linux seem vanishingly small to me :-P

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means I'll *finally* get Netflix on Linux.

Umm... no, you won't.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[BasilBrush]

What's to say that Netflix wont choose an encryption scheme that has a Microsoft Windows only CDM?

Because they wouldn't want to lose their existing Mac users. If their existing solution was based on Silverlight, that would explain why access was limited to just Windows and Mac. Microsoft's limitation, not Netflix's.

Given an open solution such as this, Netflix gets a better choice as to what platforms they support. And if they judge they'll get enough business from Linux users to make it worth their while, then they'll surely support it.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Anonymous Coward]

This push is because of Netflix. Now that they have to dump Silverlight, it's understandable that they wouldn't want to invest into a Flash-like solution just to have it happen again.

Which means I'll *finally* get Netflix on Linux. I see this as a win for everyone but RMS.

You're a fucking idiot. You'll never get to see Netflix on linux because while the "drm interface" may be standardised across different platforms, the implementation is not. The implementation is platform specific. In other terms, Netflix will use an implementation that is compatible with windows, os x (not so sure) since it doesn't implement protect-path and obviously not linux.
You'll get fucked, and by necessity you'll need to go to usenet or some torrent site to get the content (until governemnts decide to nuke any kind of p2p communication on the web and transform it into the 21st century tv). We're already halfway there with this stupid W3c decision.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[meustrus]

What's to say that Netflix wont choose an encryption scheme that has a Microsoft Windows only CDM?

The W3C is giving Netflix the opportunity to choose a cross-platform CDM where before they could only support platforms that Microsoft had "blessed" with Silverlight. Why would they did pick a Windows-only scheme if there's no advantage to that over Silverlight? Worst case, things stay the same. Big whoop.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[meustrus]

Like the odds of anyone writing a closed-source graphics driver for Linux?

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Microlith]

The W3C is giving Netflix the opportunity to choose a cross-platform CDM

So it'll be cross platform, but only to platforms Netflix approves of.

Worst case, things stay the same.

I expect things to stay the same. Only now we'll have more CDMs than plugins, and more attack vectors to be concerned about.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[ssam]

is it even possible?

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because someone doesn't have your level of technical knowledge, he/she is an idiot. No wonder people fucking hate you (you know that they do) making snap judgements from a few lines on the internet from some random person.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[sixsixtysix]

Why don't they just roll their own plug-in and have it available on every system?
If they're are going to rely on a 3rd party again, it's going to be more of the same.
If they're going to do it in-house, the current system already works.
Either, I'm going to assume this new system only removes some of the dev costs:
Instead of dealing with both OS and browser level, it'll just be the OS level,
which seems to be insignificant, unless the browser has strayed from the current standards.

Re:Without explicitly saying it...

[BasilBrush]

There's no guarantee they'll support Linux. But they won't change to drop Mac.

I'm just going on the theory that an open standard makes it easier for them to support Linux. But still they won't do it if the costs of doing so outweigh the revenue they expect from it. Whether they develop in-house or via third-party.

If they want false comfort, let them have it

[thoth_amon]

The central problem with DRM is that it stops only honest people. Anything that is located entirely on the user's computer in obfuscated form and plays from there can be cracked, and crackers will crack it, whereupon the cracked goods will quickly find themselves on BitTorrent and other sharing networks.

The thing is, competing with free isn't that hard. If you offer high-quality goods for a reasonable price, using an open format, at a convenient location, customers will buy from you. How did Tower Records thrive for so many years when recording tape-to-tape or record-to-tape was so easy? Or, for a modern example, look at Tor books, which has un-DRMed its books. They say the sky isn't falling. This transition has already largely completed in the realm of technical books at companies like O'Reilly, Manning, Apress, and others.

DRM is an endless and futile game for content creators, and an annoyance to customers. I doubt in the end that any DRM standard we settle upon will be sufficient for most publishers for many reasons, ranging from capabilities to safety, and in the end those publishers who are really serious about DRM will go with proprietary plugins anyway (and will find that those don't work very well either).

Article is full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

The author of this article is full of it. DRM should have no place in HTML.

People should simply ignore and shun vendors who insist on DRM, period. When vendors realize that DRM is costing them money and lots of it, instead of making them money, then they will get the message and release their products without DRM.

Re:Article is full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

People should simply ignore and shun vendors who insist on DRM, period.

Why should they do that? People want to watch movies and see DRM protected content.

News flash: most ppl of the world are not driven by your ideology.

Re:Article is full of it

[mrbester]

Not quite correct. People want to see movies. That these movies and other content has DRM is usually irrelevant except to that small percentage who aren't on the supported platforms. For the most part people don't even know it is there.

A stance of "DRM has no place in HTML5" (a marketing term, like "HTML 2.0") would help educate the blissfully ignorant of how the web works and that it is the *content providers* who are trying to dictate how you consume.

Re:Article is full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they do that? People want to watch movies and see DRM protected content.

Then let 'em run apps.

Live and let live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are going to want to use DRM for there product, let them. Part of being open is being accepting, eventually they'll realize it was never a good idea and they will grow. Forcing wisdom on the unwilling never goes down well, ie: the USSR.

I'm okay with that...

[Jarmihi]

I'm okay with that. Get them off of the Web! If the money-grabbers leave, the Internet might revert to its natural, free, anything goes state it enjoyed in the nineties.

Re:I'm okay with that...

[BasilBrush]

Be careful what you wish for. Here's some typical 90s style web sites.

http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/
http://www.partytentcity.com/
http://www.dpgraph.com/

Re:I'm okay with that...

[Entropius]

Here's another:

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/index.html

It's a thing with a huge amount of content, in a pleasant, elegant, and readable form. Yes, it's mostly just plaintext. So?

The modern equivalent I think is reddit, which is similarly barebones -- just a bunch of text, and people writing text in response to text -- but it clearly works.

Re:I'm okay with that...

[BasilBrush]

It's less bad, but it's still bad. It defines no width for the text, allowing a single column to go right across the monitor for a maximized window. 30 words per line on my 13" laptop!

Sure, I COULD resize my window to suit. But the fact that I have to is a big flaw of the website.

Then there's the issue that it's ugly and has nothing to draw people in.

Then, the "Site Map" link is broken. And the domain itself has no index, dumping you at an Apache file browser.

It's a piece of shit, made to seem only slightly acceptable by comparison with the appalling examples I posted myself.

It's fantastic that the web isn't much like that any more.

Re:I'm okay with that...

[lennier]

It defines no width for the text, allowing a single column to go right across the monitor for a maximized window.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Seriously, this is something I actually want. If I want text to be in a column, I can resize my browser window so it's smaller. I get really frustrated with today's website schemes which render all the text inside a tiny column on my huge landscape monitor. I have all that space for a reason - why does the website designer think their idea of a readable layout is better than mine? I'm the one who's actually reading it.

Re:I'm okay with that...

[BasilBrush]

I have all that space for a reason - why does the website designer think their idea of a readable layout is better than mine? I'm the one who's actually reading it.

And you are no different from anyone else. Your eyes and the visual part of your brain is not unique. A very short or a very long line will slow down your reading. Too short and and your eye is spending more of it's time jumping from line end to line beginning. Too long and your brain will find it difficult to follow all the way back to the start of the line, such that you accurately land on the beginnig of the next line each time.

Optimal is somewhere in the area of 10-15 words. The actual column width in pixels will vary depending on the font.

The designer should know this, and you have demonstrated you don't. Add on the fact that the font will determine what a good column width will be and the right place to make the decision is with the page designer. Not the reader.

Heck even if the reader were best person to chose, surfing the web would be a fucking pain in the ass if you had to resize the window to make the column width optimal for each different page you visit.

Now, as to wasting the space on your huge monitor, HTML5 and responsive design are going to make that better for you in future. They allow the designer to vary the number of columns depending on the viewport width. So you'll get more READABLE columns on your maximised window on your large monitor in the next wave of web designs.

Re:I'm okay with that...

[Entropius]

There are two opposing mentalities here.

One is that the designer (of a website, of an operating system, of whatever) knows best and you don't have any special circumstances ever, and that you should just take whatever beautifully-crafted creation he gives you and use it as is.

This is the mentality behind Apple and Windows 8.

The other mentality puts value on flexibility, and claims that there is no way the designer can predict everything that a user wants a piece of software to do, or every way in which a user wants to view a website. They design things to have sensible defaults but as much customization as is practical, and allow the user to make her own choices. The original HTML did this: rather than tyrannically specifying precisely how a page should look, it specified what it should contain, and let the combination of the user and renderer determine how it should look.

This is the mentality behind Linux.

Optimal column width is not that big of a deal -- you say "something in the area of", and then a range with 50% uncertainty. I can resize my browser from full screen width to half width with one key shortcut (in KDE, not sure if OSX can do this, but it should if it can't); isn't that enough to get "close enough"?

Re:I'm okay with that...

[Entropius]

Yes, this exactly. I'm the one reading it, and if I'm too lazy to resize my damn browser then it's my own fault if it's hard to read. Does the whole "line too long slows down reading" problem really cause that much of a problem? When I was writing my thesis (writing LaTeX in vim) I had the font size set to something small and the vi window fullscreened, because I needed as much damn text on the screen at once so I could refer back and forth to equations and text and so on. Imagine trying this in MS Word! "Nope, you've got the margins set to XYZ, that's all you can see at once!"

Re:I'm okay with that...

[BasilBrush]

This is the mentality behind Linux.

And that is why Linux never took off on the desktop. Linux was only successful when it's UI followed the first option - in Android.

Linux geeks are ignorant when it comes to design considerations. This is why, without the help of commercial outfits, who have designers on the payroll, Linux never gets anywhere. Linux geeks don't even realize what they don't know.

I can resize my browser from full screen width to half width with one key shortcut (in KDE, not sure if OSX can do this, but it should if it can't); isn't that enough to get "close enough"?

No. Arbitrarily halving the browser window, with the possibility that it might come within range of a decent column width is not "close enough". It's barely a hack. What's close enough is to let someone who knows what they are doing design it.

DRM in HTML is not better

[Anonymous Coward]

"A browser like Mozilla is *legally prevented* from actually implementing DRM, because they have to reveal all their code, including the decryption code that contains the secrets you use to decrypt," said Google Chrome team member Tab Atkins Jr., in a reply to the mailing list discussion.

"The proposal comes from authors at Google, Microsoft and Netflix, companies that stand to profit from the union of HTML5 and DRM ... *Netflix* responded that this particular component of a browser would *have to be implemented as closed source*" (emphasis added)

It could work....if they call up valve

[bullocp913]

This could be a major factor in businesses opening up to the internet instead of writing it off because of potentially lost intellectual property. This does not mean that I am totally for DRM, but instead of just saying no why not try to influence the outcome in a positive way. DRM has been proven to be pretty successful when implemented in the right such as with valve, which is the least intrusive DRM implementation I can think of. Look at what that has done, an entire community where everybody feels as if they can submit something and make some money, which is businesses main concern.

What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between a closed-source plugin (what we have now) and a closed-source CDM (what the Editor's Draft) describes?

I can't see any practical improvement here at all. Does this thing help anyone?

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely.

This is not an argument for adding DRM to HTML. It is important that someone who wants DRM can't use the web. By adding DRM to HTML, you remove the competitive advantage from someone who doesn't use DRM. That will cause more content owners to use DRM, which is WHAT WE DO NOT WANT!

Moral defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it would have been a "moral victory" to keep the standard out of W3C, and it was included anyway, does that make W3C inherently immoral?

Re:Moral defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it would have been a "moral victory" to keep the standard out of W3C, and it was included anyway, does that make W3C inherently immoral?

It does make it a whore to Microsoft's, Google's and Netflix's interests.

So what's wrong?

[rbprbp]

"Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely. "
So what is wrong with this, exactly? If you want to distribute DRMed content, you are fully free to use your own means. Let the web stay DRM-free, as it should be.

Re:So what's wrong?

[tlhIngan]

"Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely. "
So what is wrong with this, exactly? If you want to distribute DRMed content, you are fully free to use your own means. Let the web stay DRM-free, as it should be.

So you want the Android and iOS way of using the internet then? Where you interact with apps to do your banking, check maps, check what food is nearby, get ratings on movies/shows/food, etc?

You know, Steve Jobs was onto something with the original iPhone - where developers would be forced to do everything in HTML and Javascript. But developers lobbied for a native SDK, leading to app stores and the rest as we know it today. Now we have people complaining that why are people using apps now when before, they could've just used the web? People are making apps that are basically web site containers. Or publishing apps that are basically sets of static HTML content in a web view.

And not on the web.

Hell, people use the Amazon app to buy stuff online. You go into the store, scan the barcode with the amazon app, and click buy. You could do the same by browsing Amazon's web page on your browser, but it's less convenient and easy. And if the trend continues, Amazon may decide that their website links you to their app page to finish the purchase because the vast majority of people are buying stuff through the app. Right now it hasn't happened. But who knows?

In the end, an app based world is one where everything is segregated - you use one app for your sports scores, another for your banking, a third for shopping, etc. And there'll be this dusty app called a "web browser" that once was used for that stuff, but because everyone used apps instead, slowly lost prominence as apps could have better security, could display content better, could do advertising better, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure Netflix's main usage now is apps (for smartphones, set top boxes, etc), and a very tiny portion of it is pure web access. Silverlight is dead. It's only a matter of time before Netflix pulls web access to its content because everyone uses the Netflix app anyway.\

Hell, forums on the web are being taken over by apps - you may have heard of things like Tapatalk and Forum Runner.

Reality intrudes.

[westlake]

The reality is that every Internet enabled device in your home or car supports subscription services and protected media content. Each to some degree pushes the "open web" browser further into the background.

The Windows 8 Start Page makes that explicit.

If the app becomes your primary source for music, videos, books, newspapers, magazines and games, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine the app becoming your primary source for other content and services as well.

Are they switching away from the Web?

[Exitar]

And I will switch away from them.

I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[tangent3]

I hate DRM like everyone here, but I would rather have the choice to purchase DRMed content than to be completely locked out just because I am not on the 'preferred platform'.

Hopefully DRM will die a natural death from people voting with their wallets when there are alternatives. In that case the act of having HTML5 DRM just gives DRM more rope to hang itself with.

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[icebraining]

You'll still be locked out, because the proposal involves proprietary binary blobs that perform the actual decryption, which won't exist for your platform.

The only "standard" part is the browser hooks for those modules to plug into.

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please explain why it's necessarily true that these proprietary binary blobs won't exist for certain platforms? What prevents a proprietary blob from being created for certain platforms?

Not trying to claim you're wrong... It's just I keep seeing this stated without explanation, and would like to better understand.

Thanks!

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Microlith]

Could you please explain why it's necessarily true that these proprietary binary blobs won't exist for certain platforms?

Because they're lazy? They don't see the cost of implementing it being worth the return? Because the platform vendor failed to negotiate a deal with $service for royalties in exchange for access to their EME module? Because the platform doesn't implement top-to-bottom walled garden "the user is the enemy" security policies?

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please explain why it's necessarily true that these proprietary binary blobs won't exist for certain platforms?

Look back to when netflix started, and all the way up to right now.

Has netflix put out any binary blob method to allow linux to decrypt their video? No.

They haven't done so any time in the past, and there is no indication they have plans for that to change.
(Nor do they need any web browser standard to do so, then or now)

What prevents a proprietary blob from being created for certain platforms?

Technically? Nothing what so ever.
Realistically? I don't know the answer to that, you'll have to ask netflix why they always have refused to do that so far.

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the response. This is a topic I've been on the fence about for a while, and am trying to better educate myself & form an opinion.

A couple more questions:
1) If Netflix isn't putting out a method to allow Linux to decrypt video now, why does it matter what method they use to lock out platforms in the future? If they're doing it, wouldn't it be better for them to be doing it using a standardized method?
2) Does the standard make it any easier (than say Silverlight/Flash, etc.) for Netflix to be able to support Linux in the future?

Thanks!

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[hobarrera]

For the same reason that there's no flash for powerpc linux, amd64 openbsd, arm plan9, etc...

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If Netflix isn't putting out a method to allow Linux to decrypt video now, why does it matter what method they use to lock out platforms in the future? If they're doing it, wouldn't it be better for them to be doing it using a standardized method?

a) The details of this proposal end up only marginally different than today's status quo of plugins and apps, so the whole exercise is a waste of time.

b) Whether EME is blessed by W3C or not, the only working implementations will likely be desktop/embedded IE and Windows-desktop/embedded Chrome. This whole exercise is just wasting everyone else's time.

c) It opens the door for more harebrained schemes of non-open BS being pushed through W3C.

2) Does the standard make it any easier (than say Silverlight/Flash, etc.) for Netflix to be able to support Linux in the future?

At best it makes Netflix on general-purpose-Linux only very slightly less unlikely. (Netflix on Linux is already a very real thing, but only for a limited set of locked-down devices.)

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

I can modify my linux system so that anything going to the display is instead routed through mencoder to produce a video direct from my screen.

Unless they insist that only an OS with protected path (or similar) trusted computing components, standardising DRM and creating a portable decryption module will ensure that the data will be trivially broken, therefore it will not be allowed.

If I write a browser that conforms to the API but caches a result and can fake being a service to the CDM, then again the DRM module cannot ensure that allowance has been given to show the "protected content" and therefore unless it is a web browser that has been signed by a third party as NOT doing that, the CDM will not be available or it would break the DRM again.

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[devent]

ROFL. I like your first question.
If they have used whips to punish the slaves, wouldn't it be better if they would use a standard whip instead of their custom made whip?

For your second question: No.

Adobe goal was to dominate the web with their Flash technology. After years and years of waiting Adope finally released a Linux version of Flash, only to be horrible broken (see for example [1], HAL is deprecated for years). Then Microsoft starts a direct competitor to Flash: Silverlight. You would think because Adobe and Microsoft goals are to have a well established technology in the Web that they would offer best support. But besides Windows and MacOS there is no such best support.

So I ask, if two giants in the technology sector are not bothering to making a true system independent DRM implementation, why would anybody offer EME style DRM modules for Windows, MacOS and Linux? The EME will not change anything. All it will do is to introduce DRM to the open Web and took open and free system at a disadvantage.

[1] http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/flash-player-11-problems-playing.html

Re:I'm not too bothered by DRM in HTML5

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe goal was to dominate the web with Macromedia's Flash technology.

It won't work!

[nospam007]

I'm an old fart who got his first computer in the seventies.
There were always content protection, copy protection and whatnot.
And they never worked.
This won't either.

Re:It won't work!

[KGIII]

PET? That was mine.

DRM is a error

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is a "disfeature" a error, a bug, and bugs are naturally fixed. DRM is like giving some people a car, with the speed meter locked so he can go faster than 40KM/h, the owner of the car will __fix__ the error, and unlock it. But DRM in some countries will turn this act in a crime. Adding DRM in HTML would make fixing your computer a crime.

W3C Proves They Are Unfit to Steward the Web

[Anonymous Coward]

EME does not belong in the web (that should be obvious since EME is by its very definition is not open while the web by very definition must be open). Google and Microsoft are still free to work together and implement EME in Chrome and IE, but it did not belong anywhere near the W3C. Since the W3C has embraced EME, they are rejecting the very foundational principles of the web and thus W3C must be shunned from the web. Death to W3C! Long live WHATWG?!

No

[FuzzNugget]

The alternative being a system where open standards should support our freedom rather than bow to a selection of equally oppressive options? No, it's not better than the alternative.

Why I want it to NOT work on Linux

[Skapare]

If protected content works on Linux, then I can't use the argument that the content providers do not care about the Linux market and its revenues. Then I won't have an excuse for stealing the content and saying that they aren't losing any money from my theft.

Reality is, I don't care. The vast majority of commercial content is crap, anyway. It's not even worth stealing. I just like arguing against whiny CEOs who want everything to be done for them.

Re:Why I want it to NOT work on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, you don't really have that excuse anyway. You're still breaking copyright laws one way or the other when you "steal" their "content."

The people this excuses are the ones who actually rip those streams FOR the Linux users. If they provided the content to Linux, then there wouldn't be as much of a call for people to rip it for Linux (and other unsupported OSes).

They like to bitch about the people who will never pay, and in the process encourage they do things that only encourage more people to enter that segment. It's a vicious circle of self-propagated idiocy.

Flawed Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well by that logic, why don't we just put every single DRM scheme into linux!

Standards are better

[the eric conspiracy]

Nobody likes DRM. But we've got plenty of experience with DRM provided as part of proprietary software packages.

It reeks badly. You get root kits, various spy features, ads, you name it.

If I'm going to have DRM in order to get online delivery of media I sure as the dickens would rather have as part of an open source product that is subject to code review rather than the alternative.

Re:Standards are better

[hobarrera]

The the source it totally open, then it's not DRM. If I can rebuild it (because it's properly open sources), I can modify it and remove DRM-specific features.

Re:Standards are better

[the eric conspiracy]

You can rebuild it without the DRM features, but then you will not be able to play back DRM protected content.

DRM does not require closed source to implement. Sun released such a project years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_DReaM

Re:Standards are better

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun released such a project years ago.

Do you have any evidence that that project had any impact at all beyond a bunch of articles when it was released? Because that's about all Google can find about it.

Would you rather...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the choice of getting a blowjob from Natalie Portaman or any one of these alternatives...

a) getting fucked in the ass by Mickey Rourke
b) getting fucked in the mouth by Nick Notle
c) being strung up by your dick while someone punches your balls

So, is it better than the alternative?

p.s. weird-ass fetishists need not apply.

Somebody please top W3C

[Sla$hPot]

DRM, Flash and JAVA should GTFO of HTML
Flash and JAVA probably crashes about a billion times a day (seems like half of the time on my system alone). They are full of security holes. There is no need for that.
W3C should care about making HTML stable and reliable. Try to get WebGL and Web Audio into play instead of DRM.
If DRM becomes part of HTML, HTML will stop being a world wide open standard as it is today. DRM advocates will only mess with HTML until it breaks.
DRM is for propriatary systems only. As an open standard HTML can never be proprietary.
Someone is messing with HTML because they need / want it. GTFO!
Maybe W3C needs more funding, so much that they are willing to sell out to the DRM industry.
If that is the case (i'm guessing it is) then we need a new standards body for HTML standard governance.
Web streaming will hopefully always be off limits to the DRM industry. The web is a lot more than just entertainment business. It's how we all do business.
Try to mess with that.
W3C: when you have come to your senses, would you please get rid of "display:table", "display:table-row", "display:table-cell" etc from css?
Thanks.

Re:Native apps are better anyways

[GigaBurglar]

In terms of monetary value? You might be right. I totally love money - I eat it.

One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

HELLO! DRM *doesn't work*

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the moral argument (even though it is completely valid!).

DRM simply *doesn't work*. Making it a standard won't make it work. Blessing from content industries won't make it work. Calling it "HTML5" won't make it work.

As long as there is a `mov eax, ebx` (or equivalent) instruction in a computer, DRM will not work. Unfortunately (for the content industry), this instruction is required to make a universal computer.

Once you have a universal computer, you CANNOT restrict "valid" computations from "invalid" computations. Universality doesn't work like that.

This is a mathematical *truth*. Not an opinion. Not a matter of humans getting together and deciding. This is the equivalent of squaring the circle -- except now another organization has decided to "standardize" squaring a circle methods, so that they can ship circle-squaring binary blobs around.

Hollyweb

[MacDork]

Fuck. You.

What I wish Tim Berners Lee^W^W^W W3C understood about DRM.

Patent licences are administered by a licensing authority (LA), which creates a standard set of terms for licensing. These terms always include a list of features that the manufacturers may not implement (for example, you may not add a "save to hard drive" feature to a DVD player)

How long do you think we have until the back button and close window button are disabled for video ads online?

This will not make the Intenet any better

[Anonymous Coward]

As the article states:
"EME does not specify any DRM scheme per se. Rather, it defines a set of APIs that allow JavaScript and HTML to interact with decryption/protection modules. These modules will tend to be platform-specific in one way or another and will contain the core DRM technology."
So no DRM for Linux and therefore no Netflix for Linux. At least not on any open source browser (Chrome != Chromium).

I Don't Have A Problem with DRM in HTML 5 Standard

[turkeyfish]

I don't have a problem with DRM in HTML 5 Standards, as long as there is also a way to effectively and automatically set one's browser to ignore and not display any DRM content or mechanisms seeking payment for seeing that content. If people want to encrypt their data and not let me see it that's fine with me as long as they don't force me to spend any time what so ever otherwise using the remaining HTML 5 content or navigating around intrusive DRM content.

DRM content, out of sight, out of mind. Otherwise, I'm going to be force to watch and navigate around all sort of commercials and advertisements for stuff I have no interest in paying for.

If DRM content is to be managed within HTML there needs to be seemless standards that make it entire invisible to people who don't want to be bothered by it, when viewing other non-DRM content. Otherwise, this stuff will rapidly make the rest of the web useless as you waste time just trying to figure out how to avoid it.

No binary blobs in HTML5

[HalAtWork]

I don't want binary blobs* to be included in a document for what is supposed to be read on a cross-platform interpreter. The binary blob will not work in this situation anyway (different CPU/OS APIs/etc), so why include it as part of the standard? It might as well be an external app or plugin.

* The Content Decryption Module (CDM) required to interpret/implement the DRM

Contrived issue centering around Netflix

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Netflix announces abandonment of Silverlight and there is this sudden grassroots interest in vamping HTML5. Netflix' existing DRM platform as well as any possible HTML5 implementation is vulnerable to video driver-level screen capture by "Replay Video Capture" and others.

So the pirates already have access to Netflix content and would continue to have access to it if HTML5 is imbibed with magick.

So why bother.

The only DRM that could possibly work (for awhile anyway) would be something like PKI certs and decryption embedded in the hardware and firmware of an HDMI monitor, where the web provider feeds an encrypted stream directly into the monitor. But as we have seen with DeCSS, such cat and mouse games often go awry.

Re:Contrived issue centering around Netflix

[melstav]

Netflix wants to switch not because they're looking for DRM. They want to switch because they're looking for a better platform that also supports adequate DRM. Sure, no matter what they come up with, somebody's going to find a way to circumvent it. But the majority of people aren't going to put that amount of effort into it.

Besides, from all signs, not even Microsoft takes Silverlight seriously anymore. ( http://www.infoworld.com/t/microsoft-windows/microsoft-shuns-its-own-silverlight-while-embracing-flash-214335 )

Switching to HTML5 will allow them to build a user interface that will work on any system that'll run a modern web browser and stream video content as long as a supported DRM module is available.THAT is the reason that, as of now, the only way to stream content from Netflix on linux involves using WINE. They climbed into bed with Microsoft and moved their platform to be 100% Silverlight, and Microsoft absolutely refuses to allow their DRM interface to be ported to Mono, which means that any system that isn't Windows or MacOS is SOL.

DRM support in HTML5 allows Netflix to be in control of which platforms are going to be able to play their content.

Re:Contrived issue centering around Netflix

[gl4ss]

netflix might just as well then write their own plugin.

the reason why netflix went with silverlight in the first place was that content providers agreed on ms sanctioned drm to be good enough for them and demanded it on desktops.. netflix hasn't had the exact same schemes under their apps though.

Re:Native apps are better anyways

[lgw]

I'd put it this way: regardless of what the W3C does, the user experience in the browser will be the same. You'll go to a Netflix web page, click, and watch a DRMd video stream. That's 1/3 of internet traffic today, and Netflix has no choice about the DRM part.

The only question is: will that 1/3 of internet traffic be following the HTML5 standard, or not be following the HTML5 standard? The question "should streaming video have DRM" is completely irrelevant to the standard: hate it or accept it, you can't eliminate DRM through a standard.

Do we love the days of IE6, where a big chunk of internet traffic ignored the W3C? Wasn't that fun?

open == open?

[sixsixtysix]

If you want an open web, then certainly this DRM should also have to open, right?
I mean, anyone should be able to use it for their own content, it being a part of this open framework and all.

if the IP owners wanted to leave the WWW let them

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest, no movie house can build what the www IS, they NEED US AND THE WWW not the other way around.

The author of this article is a TWIT and has his nose way too far up hollywood's backside.

I for one will NEVER use a HTML 5 browser or any other technology for this single reason, and I look forward to coding for HTML of better pedigree. W3C has just shot themselves in the foot.

HTML5 is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former systems programmer, turn javascript web programmer, turn back to systems programming I can say clearly that web based applications are a dead end. Sure, they will iterativly get better but at the end of the day you're just re-inventing technology that was "done" in 1990. I simply can't believe how much wasted energy goes into things like reinventing menu bars or reinventing drop down lists then making those same elements portable across all browser vendors and smartphones. It's an utter waste of time - OS vendors have provided system programmers with very smooth and very efficient means for UI development. Wicked faster performance and with the new app store models delivery of the app is no longer an issue - the main reason web apps caught on in the first place. AJAX is just client/server all over again. Wake me when browsers have native p2p support baked in - then maybe we'll see something interesting.

DRM=bad, standardized DRM=not quite as bad

[stenvar]

I think an HTML5 DRM standard actually would be a good thing. It would create much more competition for streaming video and reduce vendor lock-in.

Eventually, competition might push Apple to allow streaming iTunes content to other platforms, and to allow Google Movies on iPad.

Re:DRM=bad, standardized DRM=not quite as bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, any vendor can create their own Flash or Silverlight implementation of their own DRM scheme. Therefore, "HTML5 DRM" is the same as Flash and Silverlight; a technique to show DRMed content as a part of a website.

The upcoming standard is NOT about standardizing the DRM itself, it's only about placing the DRM-parts inside the browser and inside plugins other than Flash and Silverlight. Therefore, it will have absolutely no effect on competition or vendor lock-in.

What it WILL change, on the other hand, is the trust people have in W3C and possibly even browser developers. The W3C has previously been known to support openess in order to create interoperability on the Web (which DRM is _designed_ to break). Browser developers have usually tried to prevent malicious code to execute on the computer in order to protect the user, but are now most likely going to shove binary code execution à la ActiveX down the users' throats.

In terms of binary code execution, embedding it inside HTML is far worse than embedding it inside Flash and Silverlight. Installing Flash and Silverlight is always opt-in, while most browser vendors are likely to make the DRM-components of HTML opt-out.

EXACLTY!

[bussdriver]

They don't need our help; whole businesses have been formed around the lack of DRM from day 1. We can continue just fine without DRM just as we have for decades. Needing Apps or crippled apps in the form of browser plug-ins has been the norm for decades. It creates a hurdle for anybody implementing DRM; which promotes an open web.

This is the same BS we hear all the time... there would be no film, no plays, no music, no culture if we didn't have copyright - there would be no technology without patents... as if we came out of the caves, invented the wheel just centuries ago.

The Apps were/are at risk because of the migration TO the web and now a small fad of migration of web to mobile apps is seen as a huge deal? That is going on independent of DRM support! Besides many mobile apps are just app wrapped html apps anyhow.

The web will continue to be fine. Just as DRM hasn't worked and ends up hacked eventually - every time - doing it as an open standard by the w3c is even more foolish (unless the w3c wants some donation $.) With just 1 target for attackers to work against with multiple implementations and an open standard to refer to, it will not only be vastly more accessible to people thinking of cracking it than the past DRM schemes but it's standardization on the web will create a larger audience.

Re:EXACLTY!

[sixsixtysix]

Yup, one basket for all those eggs.
Shame about any master key(s)/source code getting released after widespread adoption.;)

If they don't like no DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't like the current no-DRM internet and web, they can decide not to put out content.

Of course, the problem there is that if their content is not seen, it's not worth anything.

So they need viewers.

Seriously, why must their DRM'd stuff be visible on the web browser? Why not have their "content" available for download that you can then play and that download includes the DRM and player?

Re:If they don't like no DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't like the current no-DRM internet and web, they can decide not to put out content.

This is true. They can also decide to continue using third-party, non-standard plugins. Or they can decide to support a change to the standard to continue providing content while also making a profit.

Of course, the problem there is that if their content is not seen, it's not worth anything.

And if it's not worth anything, it won't be created.

So they need viewers.

Yup. And there are a lot of viewers using web browsers.

Seriously, why must their DRM'd stuff be visible on the web browser? Why not have their "content" available for download that you can then play and that download includes the DRM and player?

There's no reason why it MUST be visible in a web browser, but it sure makes a lot of sense. Almost everyone has a web browser, and many are used to viewing non-DRM'd content in their web browser.

Re:If they don't like no DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. They can also decide to continue using third-party, non-standard plugins. Or they can decide to support a change to the standard to continue providing content while also making a profit.

except that's not true. just change cdm to plug-in, where is the difference, really? instead of 2 or 3 plug-ins, every company will roll their own? or just rely on the same 2-3 parties, who will somehow jack up the fees? allow a single, much-easier attack vector for the bad guys? sounds retarded.

And if it's not worth anything, it won't be created.

so everything is only created solely for profit. sounds false.

Yup. And there are a lot of viewers using web browsers.

you're gonna be forced to use 1 or 2 very specific browsers, for very specific OSes. not any different. (is that sinking in yet?)

There's no reason why it MUST be visible in a web browser, but it sure makes a lot of sense. Almost everyone has a web browser, and many are used to viewing non-DRM'd content in their web browser.

again, it's not that simple at all.

Re:If they don't like no DRM

[realityimpaired]

so everything is only created solely for profit. sounds false.

Profit may not necessarily be financial, but every single thing that has ever been produced by humans for the entire history of our species has been done for profit of some sort.

Re:If they don't like no DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit may not necessarily be financial, but every single thing that has ever been produced by humans for the entire history of our species has been done for profit of some sort.

But if the profit is of a form that isn't reduced by lack of DRM then it doesn't count in the context of this discussion.

A victory for whom?

[hobarrera]

I see this as a victory for content providers (since they have one more distribution channel, and more profit), not for users (who'll slowly get DRM shoved down their throats even more).
I currently use NOTHING with any form of DRM. Will I have to blacklist firefox in future as well? How's that a victory for me?

Re:I Don't Have A Problem with DRM in HTML 5 Stand

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with DRM in HTML 5 Standards, as long as there is also a way to effectively and automatically set one's browser to ignore and not display any DRM content or mechanisms seeking payment for seeing that content.

You have a good point. However, if you inspect about:config of Firefox you see a whole bunch of crap that is enabled by default. The idea of how much crap that can't be disabled even with about:config often makes me want to fork it and rip out huge chunks of source code.

The probability that all DRM-features can be disabled in an upcoming version is virtually zero. In best case, we can prevent it from being activated using addons such as NoScript and RequestPolicy, but it will still be there. If a malicious site figures out a way around it (such as abusing the default whitelists that NoScript keeps insisting on), then it will be impossible to keep the browser secure.

Since I only use Firefox, I can't speak for how other browsers work or how they will work once they are filled with DRM.

Betteridge's Law proven untrue?

[allo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Re:Native apps are better anyways

[allo]

a standard won't mean any benefit to you. The DRM module is still closed source, missing important updates and not available for every os, maybe not even for every browser.

Re:if the IP owners wanted to leave the WWW let th

[KGIII]

I for one will NEVER use a HTML 5 browser or any other technology for this single reason

That seems... Unlikely... I don't believe you but I do wish you luck.

gold diggers

[epine]

I just want a plug-in that reliably warns me:

This page contains DRM markup, would you like to [hang around] or [bugger off]?

If Google still cared about search, it would provide me an option to down-rank all DRM-containing search results. I'm not philosophically opposed to DRM. We all know that sex and money are deeply connected. But it shouldn't be the first question.

Are you rich?

Wanda should never be your top search result.

Doublespeek new "living standard" for HTML5

[Neuroelectronic]

DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open web

what the everloving fuck

Re:Oh the horror! (FIXED)

[Anonymous Coward]

"The rest of the world generates masses of traffic, money and innovation - far more than the thugs in the content industry, Yet all we ever hear about is how everyone else should dance to the American entertainment industry's tune."

Fixed that for you

DRM would be very bad for the Web

[Stonefish]

HTTP thrived because all of the major vendors were trying to shackle customers to their proprietry interfaces and along came this open transparent system which allowed information to be shared.
Now a bunch of dinosaurs and upstarts are pushing a set of completely unnecessary controls onto this platform solely for their own benefit. Not the customers benefit. Let everyone know that these services already existing without DRM, there is absolutely no benefit to those with Web browsers. The point of these stardards is to consolidate the status quo rather and allowing the economy to transform around more efficient information transportation modes.

KEEP DRM OUT

[Anonymous Coward]

I want content that wants DRM to NEED a plugin into my FREE system. I want that kind of Kulure excluded in any and all default configurations. Any use should require one go out of the free world to get myself so compromised.It should require explicit effort.

Open standard + DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Does not compute.
Unless you are using secret keys ... in the software, but then it's not really an open standard now ?

DRM is a broken methodology, it's anti your rights

[MrL0G1C]

Bright argues that if HTML5 does not support DRM, then content providers will move their content away from open standards and implement it with native apps

Good, they can take their crap and stick it where I don't want it because if it's DRM'ed then I don't want it, so keep the DRM the hell away from my browser.

DRM is an insidious evil that does nothing but treat you like a thief, it stops all kinds of disability plugins from working, it stops your fair use rights, it breaks everything, you might find that because some driver doesn't work perfectly that you can't view content you paid for, or you may find that you can't legitimately copy something when you have the fair use right to. Even an action as simple as highlighting a couple of words and copying them to search about them may be removed. And the huge irony will be that this won't stop the pirates, it will only prevent paying users.

Sincerely, keep this out of HTML5, it just doesn't belong in a free web. If someone want's to write some proprietary thing to screw their customers then let them do that, but don't go forcing this stuff on everyone else so easily.

This is a step forward

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, if Netflix wants to show DRM'd video, they use the Adobe Flash plugin via the HTML-standard / tags. Obviously this only works on platforms where the Adobe Flash plugin is available.

With this proposal, if Netflix wants to show DRM'd video, they could use an Adobe DRM plugin via the proposed EME API. Obviously this only works on platforms where the Adobe DRM plugin is available.

From an "OMG THERE IS DRM!!!" perspective, there is no real difference. Both have DRM. Both integrate into the browser using defined HTML tags and a browser-specific plugin API.

However, what this does do is further kill the Flash / Silverlight plugins. Flash and Silverlight are big, complicated things containing DRM, a programming environment, graphics, animation, and more. An Adobe DRM or Microsoft DRM plugin would be much smaller and simpler, since it only has to do DRM. Because of this:

      - Currently, people doing streaming video are often tempted to write their entire site in Flash / Silverlight instead of HTML. With EME they are more likely to write the entire site in HTML. This is much better for the future of HTML. And it makes it easy for theses sites to do non-DRM video that doesn't require any plugin, either now or in the future.

      - Hopefully the DRM plugin will have less security vulnerabilities than Flash / Silverlight tend to have, because the DRM plugin is simpler with less code.

      - Since the DRM plugin is smaller it may be easier to port to different platforms. This may even lead to DRM support on Linux, at least for the people who use the binary Nvidia / ATI drivers.

Also, there is a second part to the EME proposal. As well as a standard API for DRM, it also defines a standard encryption mechanism for on-the-wire encryption of the video. This provides security similar to SSL - i.e. the video is encrypted as it travels over the internet, but it's decrypted in the browser. There are no "robustness rules", so there's nothing stopping an open-source Linux browser from implementing this, and there's nothing stopping a browser from having a "save video file to disk unencrypted" option. I wouldn't call this "DRM" because it doesn't have the bad parts of DRM - it doesn't stop you from doing stuff with the video once you've downloaded it. However, it may be good enough for some content providers to use, allowing even "free software" browsers to view some videos.

What's the problem?

[spongman]

I don't know what everyone's getting so upset about. Content is becoming more and more available online, on more and more devices.

How you get that content can be done in one of three ways:

1) in the browser

2) in one of a growing array of proprietary apps with patchy platform support.

3) illegally

Take your pick.

Really?

[Cummy]

"then content providers will move their content away from open standards and implement it with native apps — abandoning the web in the process" Am I the only person that thinks this bit of information stinks like an open landfill? Which IT manager of CEO who wants to keep his job will "abandon the web"? Tell me that someone made this crap up! The argument for DRM is fickle at best and using this like of bullcrap only shows desperation. DRM might have some advantages but it also has the potential to reduce access for legitimately purchased goods. The real question is who does it benefit? When the consumer has to pay to access his "property" from a second computer or has to pay for multiple copies of the same material because DRM prevents access and transfers, only big business will benefit. Content providers migrated to the web without DRM, I really can't see why they would just take all their marbles and go at this point.

Why this again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are there so fucking many of these articles posted here asking the same fucking question? You can't persuade us that having DRM hooks build into HTML is a good idea.

Now for phase 2

[Hypotensive]

Because there are multiple stages here. The next one is all the browser authors deciding that their browser will support this new API. If at least one major browser doesn't support the API, it's just as fragmented as if there had been no standard in the first place. And frankly, I hope that turns out to be the case.

Re:Native apps are better anyways

[lgw]

A standard should allow the DRM module to be browser-independent. How OS-dependent it is would be up to the team who wrote it, so likely needlessly so. Still, having full browser choice on an OS with any support would be fine.

Re:Native apps are better anyways

[DeVilla]

Perhaps I missed something. Is the W3C defining an ABI for web browser plugins? And do they think they can provide a way to prevent the user from inserting code between the plugin and video driver?

I thought the W3C only defined the document formats and network protocols. Failure to define an ABI will prevent the ability to implement a "standard" browser independent plugin. Failure to to lock down the full path from he html5 API to the video driver in proprietary code will render any DRM ineffective.

This is a feeble attempt to relabel the current state of affairs with its incompatible, insecure closed plugins as "standard". Nothing meaningful is being standardized and it does not increase in portability or accessibility of any content.