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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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: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: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: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: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?