EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a formal objection to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5, saying that a draft proposal from the W3C could hurt innovation and block access to people around the world. From their press page: '"This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared of technological evolution, it could also create serious impediments to interoperability and access for all."'

Comments

impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

No DRM will mean no access for anyone!

Re:impediments to access?

[lesincompetent]

Are you mentally challenged?

Re:impediments to access?

[Gaygirlie]

No, he's quite correct. Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all, they will flat out deny everyone access if it ever were to come to that. If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already. With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins since only the part that decodes and displays the video would be proprietary, it wouldn't need to carry with it all the other features of these plugins along. And who knows? Maybe smaller proprietary binaries would be easier to reverse-engineer?

Re:impediments to access?

[deysOfBits]

GOD all we have is stupid content. My gf has Netflix Everytime I watch it I feel stupid

If I lived alone I would not even have netflix

I watch MOOCS a lot and do it lazily but at least I feel alive after I finished a course. Every now and then I actually do all the work and get a certificate but most of time I am just lazy. But still I feel alive after I finish a course.

With netflix I feel my brain is dying It's like a drug if its easily available but all you get is brain rot.

People should patronize indie music and films. Most films today are created for the sheeple who basically bleat the whole day.

Even people who just read romance, mysteries if that is all they do ALL they have is brain rot and if lucky a large vocabulary. Somewhere you have to think If you never do so you might as well watch TV the whole day. And you have to read more than novels. Every now and then you have to read something technical. You just can't just read novels and nothing THEN u might as well live in tghe DARK AGES Effectively not much of a difference if that is all you do.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.

Re:impediments to access?

[Captain Hook]

As you say, nothing says content provider can't use DRM to stream movies, EFF are simply arguing that DRM should have no place in a standard.

I personally have no problem with that. Open standards should be about ensuring as wide a interoperability as possible and DRM goes directly against that.

The other thing to note is that the DRM being talked about is not a DRM implementation, it's a common interface for DRM plugins, so we still have lots of different proprietary DRM plugins and we will still be no better off than we are now..

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

No, they would just stick with what we have today.

HTML5 DRM cannot be implemented by any FOSS. If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.

So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.

Re:impediments to access?

[Gaygirlie]

That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.

It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary that's supposed to do quite a lot of things -- animations, window handling, 3D, network protocols and so on -- and that means a lot of used system resources and a larger surface for malicious attacks. A DRM-module, on the other hand, doesn't need to worry about 3D-rendering, window handling, vector graphics or anything such, it only needs to decrypt the data and verify that the surface it's given is acceptable to it. It all comes down to hopefully less resources consumed, higher stability and a lesser surface area for malicious attackers to latch on to. It just seems like a positive step to me, even if it is a small one.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

Think about what it takes to do that last part. These cannot be trivial programs. They will have to be essentially the same as those terrible video game DRMs that will not run if you have a debugger installed or if you use third party software to mount ISOs.

Re:impediments to access?

[Gaygirlie]

If the blob returns video directly instead of writing to some DRM path like windows has it would be useless.

You do realize that e.g. Flash does run on Linux? It is a binary blob running under a F/OSS platform and still does DRMed content.

So this adds nothing, netflix would still be limited to close source operating systems.

Netflix already does work on Chromebooks by way of preliminary HTML5 DRM-support. Porting a single DRM-module across platforms is easier than a full-blown, fat binary that does everything the whole browser can do.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also try learning grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

could atleast shed all the excess weight

No, you are not. It's nothing more than a middleman which redirects everything to black box. You can use Flash just as well. No need to spend time and resources on any "HTML5 DRM."

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

The word is you not u. You are the one with brain rot it appears. You should find an MOOCS for English.

Re:impediments to access?

[Gaygirlie]

I know. I still stand by my assertion that it's a lot lighter a binary than either the full-blown Flash - plugin or the Silverlight - one.

Re:impediments to access?

[Cenan]

If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already.

So what? You act as though the internet needs Big Media to survive, when in fact it is the other way around. If Big Media feels the need to develop and maintain proprietary plugins in order to provide their content, fine with me - it's an added cost to them for no bother to me. Their business model is not viable, and it is now our job to keep it afloat? Why is that exactly? What is it the Big Media corporations provide that is so very unique that we're willing to protect it to this degree?

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

I disagree, what this will lead to very quickly will be videos only playing on UEFI secure boot machines running only closed operating systems. Once that happens the banks and online stores will want similar stuff. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear EFF has being going off the deep end lately.

Yes Free software is good. No non-free software is not automatically bad. Their latest tirade against non-free javascript just makes me go "WTF?"

I agree in principle DRM is bad for everyone, but I'd rather see a move away from proprietary plugins. In fact this is exactly what is happening with "apps" and why things are being developed for iOS and NOT Android.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

You do realize that Flash DRM is a joke right?

It requires hardware support. That is why it does not run on non-chromebook ChromeOS installations. It does not run on x86 chromebooks last i checked either. That means this is harder to port not easier.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and we'd be no better off than we are already.

You mean, the status-quo would not change. You sound like you think that all change is good change.

If that is so I would suggest to make a simple pro v.s. con list. The first con would be that, as mentioned, users loose control of their own machine. If only to ward off viri, trojans and other malware that seem to be invariably tied to accepting datastreams (of all kinds) from outside sources.

With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins

Really ? Do you really think that that DRM in HTML5 contains zero bytes ? That code has to go somewhere lad, either in a plugin or into the browser-code itself.

Besides that, IIRC that "DRM" in HTML5 is not a single one, but rather a framework so any offerer of DRMed content can upload his own strain to a HTML5 enabled browser.
In short, that DRM blob would be pretty-much the same as yet another plugin.

Personally I like the seperation of actual HTML content -- you know, the text -- from all kinds of "add-ons" like (auto-play) sounds & music as well as movies and web-games.

Re:impediments to access?

[RaceProUK]

I swear EFF has being going off the deep end lately.

Their latest tirade against non-free javascript just makes me go "WTF?"

The EFF has said nothing of the sort - you're thinking of the FSF ;)

Re:impediments to access?

[RaceProUK]

With netflix I feel my brain is dying It's like a drug if its easily available but all you get is brain rot.

Then look through the library beyond the Top 10 - there's loads of great stuff if you're willing to search for it. It takes, I dunno, a minute?

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what, exactly would that black box do?

Install a rootkit?
Spy on your browsing habits to make sure you don't visit "pirate" sites?
Phone home with your personal information?

No thanks. I would rather use whatever plugin they want you to install on a VM, if I were to watch their content.

Re:impediments to access?

[foniksonik]

Flash is a full display container and runtime engine. It's so bloated with features and yet it's main use is to play video. To play video though you must include a large number of classes for control logic, js interaction, network stack, etc. way more than should be necessary.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Nothing prevents that from happening now. I see nothing scarier about having the DRM plugin mechanism standardized.

Re:impediments to access?

[foniksonik]

Netflix accounts for ~30% of all US network traffic.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's quite correct. Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all, they will flat out deny everyone access if it ever were to come to that.

Yes and if VCR's are ever allowed to exist content providers will never release content that can be so easily copied. And if DVR's are allowed content providers will pull all content from TV since they can't secure it. and if cd burners arn't made illegal content providers will stop sellng music. oh wait.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

Because that will make it easier. Right now it would require a lot of work.

If don't see that you do not value freedom and we simply will have to disagree.

Re:impediments to access?

[hlavac]

Problem with DRM is you have to show the content to legal users. If they can see it, they can copy it...

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point?

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

Not very easily, if you have something like secure content path that windows has. Enforce UEFI secure boot as well and you pretty much are left recording the screen with a camera. At that point the folks who download this copy will have playback fail when the same system recognizes the audio without accompanying encrypted data.

Re:impediments to access?

[Xest]

Rubbish. If the movie industries continue to not provide access because of no-DRM then they'll continue to suffer piracy and have physical media and cinema as their only distribution methods instead. Even the music industry eventually figure this out - that DRM was doing more harm than good.

We don't need DRM, we don't want DRM and if we avoid it and they refuse to publish their content then so be it, someone else will gladly come and take their place because there are many other film studios across the globe other than Hollywood that will gladly rake in $10million instead of the $0million Hollywood opts for because it decided not to publish at all unless it could have $100million.

DRM is about pushing the rental model and preventing ownership of things you've bought. If I pay for a film I want to be able to keep it and watch it when and where I want, not when and where the music industry says I can.

You're a fool for playing into their trap and pretending there is any kind of validity to their arguments. There's still no firm evidence that piracy even hurts them so to suggest it's a pragmatic necessity is utterly stupid.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interoperability: ability of a system to work with or use the parts or equipment of another system
or
  ((computer science) the ability to exchange and use information (usually in a large heterogeneous network made up of several local area networks))

So how would including DRM *in a STANDARD* reduce interoperability vs what we have now? If it's in a standard, it should be able to be supported by all. No more "I can't play Netflix on Linux because I can't install/run Silverlight" or "Well, I can't watch that video because Adobe doesn't package Flash for Android anymore" etc.

I fail to see the logic in your statement

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Seriously? Right now you run an install program to install silverlight and flash. What prevents them from using TC hardware now? Nothing.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

A standard API would make the plugins easier to use. This will help set top box's and media centers like XBMC. With a standard API, I can even see ways of getting content to unsupported OS's by tunneling them through supported OS's. You could host a service on a single Mac/Windows machine, and run clients on as many Linux(or other OS) machines as you want.

Re:impediments to access?

[N0Man74]

FFS... So many 3-letter acronyms.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

My OS does not support TC.
Once we go down this path, you will need TC to use all kinds of things on the internet. Make no mistake this will be used to kill FOSS on the consumer side.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people refuse to accept DRM, the content provides will have to provide it DRM free. They don't have a choice. If they don't sell their content they go out of business. Hollywood needs the web more than the web needs hollywood.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if you had actually investigated this topic then you would understand that what Captain Hook said is right.

You will still be unable to play Netflix on Linux because, regardless of browser standards, those proprietary DRM plugins will still have to be developed and compiled for every platform. You don't seriously believe they would go to the effort to support your particular distribution or even (laugh) give you or the browser vendor the source to those plugins?

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

World wide it's probably pretty small. In comparison to time spent online I bet it is also even smaller. Video is the largest thing most people will ever transfer over the Internet.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point being? Does it also count for 30% of all unique visitors and page views on the web? What about the world? Yeah I didn't think so...

Re:impediments to access?

[Bob9113]

If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already.

And if we start calling proprietary things that almost everyone is forbidden to implement "standards" then we will be worse of than we are already.

With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins

That's it?!? That's all we get for making the term "standards" mean "proprietary thing that you are forbidden to implement"? That is a horrible trade.

Re:impediments to access?

[Nemyst]

Wait, because you trust the DRM module designers and developers to do just that? This is the kind of industry that thought it just fine to install a rootkit to stop you from illegally playing music CDs. You're trading a single module, Flash, for potentially many modules from different companies, all of which will be even sloppier than Flash (which is quite a feat, but one I'm sure the media cartels will manage).

Re:impediments to access?

[MrL0G1C]

Correction: The word is you not u. You are the one with brain rot it appears. You should find a MOOCS for English.

Re:impediments to access?

[MartinG]

Just like it did for music?

Re:impediments to access?

[MartinG]

And they achieved this without DRM as a part of the standards.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

My concern is that we are making it harder for browser makers for no real benefit. Browser makers had to make a plugin API to accomodate for java applets first, then flash and silverlight. Now they will ALSO have to make that DRM API for the CDM, and the CDM is going to be a fullblown program, running as administrator. How are you going to sand box that?

You won't. The CDM will only be installed in closed down devices like tivos and chromebooks, yet the DRM API will need to be implemented and tested for any platform the browser supports. It's stupid to demand everybody to work extra to support an API that it's only going to be useful in unstandard, proprietary systems.

It's not only stupid, it's an asshole move, hollywood simply is asking browser vendors to bend over backwards for the privilege of helping them avoid work.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-abbreviations.html

It depends on how you say MOOCS.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I agree that TC is coming. However I don't see HTML 5 DRM standardization as the primary method to propagate it since the capability already exists.

The thing that will make it more common is the natural attrition of older hardware. Almost all new hardware has some form of TC built-in. When it reaches a point where content providers are able to keep a significant portion of their subscribers, you'll see TC based DRM being required. Unfortunately our choice of OS has no real bearing on the outcome since the lion's share of desktop consumers use Microsoft Windows and that OS is already friendly to TC.

I also view hardware based DRM as more open-source friendly (well as friendly as DRM can get) since it can be treated as a black box that is already present on the computer. No need to distribute it and in theory it should make the players available on more OSs running on certain hardware platforms. Basically the software would have to use the appropriate API to access it.

Anyway, my point is that you are fearing the wrong item. Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks.

Re:impediments to access?

[westlake]

Their business model is not viable, and it is now our job to keep it afloat?

Says the geek whose free-handed spending gas kept the big three sci-fi media franchises alive for fifty years ---

and whi is now throwing thick wads of cash to Disney to pay for its revival of Marvel Comics.

Big Media has strong alliances with Big Hardware and Big Services, something the geek tends to forget. Hardware accelerated HEVC and 4K video support, no problem. Server horsepower for raw compuatation in the single player game and 150 GB of cloud storage for game assets, no problem.

The odds that any random piece of consumer grade hardware with HDMI output will ship with a Netflix app approach 1 in 1.

The time the user spends in the walled garden of the app and app store is time not spent in the "open" world of the general purpose browser. The UI of the smartphone, tablet and Win 8 makes the deprecation of the browser explicit.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

I view hardware based DRM as far worse. It means I literally cannot trust my computer to be mine anymore.

I see nothing wrong with it either, if it does not infect my computer. If you want to sell me a separate box, fine. I do not however want my computer to be owned by someone else.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix already does work on Chromebooks by way of preliminary HTML5 DRM-support. Porting a single DRM-module across platforms is easier than a full-blown, fat binary that does everything the whole browser can do.

And, with this proposal codified in "HTML5", Chromebook/Android will still be the only "Linux" that Netflix will run on. Your standard Linux that doesn't lock you out of root will not get a CDM.

Re:impediments to access?

[robmv]

When you make easier to use DRM, the content owners that already used DRM with another technology will still use DRM, but there will be more DRM in content that previously was DRM free, because it will be universally accepted by browser implementing the standard. That means more "no access for everyone"

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CDM would have to do all that and more because it cannot just take in a datastream, decrypt and then send it off to an OS call to display the decrypted data since that then means it can be dumped to a file decrypted.

So the CDM would have to interface to the video hardware directly and refuse access to the same area of the video buffer (to stop someone just copying each frame of the framebuffer before sending to the VDU). It would not be able to use OS calls to decrypt or buffer the data as it was being decrypted, and it would not be able to use OS calls to convert a compressed stream to decompressed stream (since that call could copy that compressed stream to disk before decompressing it).

And it would have to be able to be certain that this isn't a VM which would give the host system the ability to fake a video path because that again would allow the decrypted and decompressed video stream to be captured and saved permanently.

If it didn't do all this, then the media isn't protected and the standardisation has merely made the opportunity to crack the datastream a single repeatable and widely appliccable method instead of one for each app to capture the output.

It either makes the cracks for ALL content a single process or it has to be far more invasive than even a kernel. Or run on a trusted OS only.

Which means you now have had to buy a $400 application called "The Home PC" instead of downloading a flash app for free...

Re:impediments to access?

[LordLimecat]

Right, but at least this "plugin interface" will be maintained by folks with a better security track record than Adobe, and wont be an implementation monoculture.

Re:impediments to access?

[lister king of smeg]

or cracking the drm on the hdmi spec oh wait it has been.

Re:impediments to access?

[bzipitidoo]

What's wrong with you people? How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again? DRM has no value whatsoever. No, there aren't any good uses for DRM. The few examples of "good DRM" I've heard are not DRM, they're just straight encryption, cryptographically secure authentication, digital signing, and the like. DRM is a bad idea that, like some damned zombie, keeps on coming back for another sequel. DRM is an offense to our rights and freedoms, a denial of reality, and an unnatural and harmful restriction upon society. It's mental indoctrination and slavery. That so many people are half convinced that maybe DRM isn't so bad, or though evil is a necessary evil, is disturbing, as it should also be seen for the insult to our intelligence that it is. DRM will never be a complete success unless they can install devices in our very brains to force us to forget that movie we saw last month or that song we heard last year. Should we also standardize a protocol for a DRM/human brain interface while we're thinking about letting it into HTML5?

Trusted Computing will never arrive as long as these special interests keep trying to twist it against us, make it into Treacherous Computing. They're still trying to give us bull about how it's actually for us because it's for our own good and the good of society, hoping we're stupid enough to accept this bad logic.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying broadband providers need Big Media with this. One user watching an episode of a TV show on Netflix takes as much as a thousand visitors reading your comment - there goes your "30% of traffic".

Re:impediments to access?

[Jockle]

Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content.

How is that even possible?

Re:impediments to access?

[westlake]

Rubbish. If the movie industries continue to not provide access because of no-DRM then they'll continue to suffer piracy and have physical media and cinema as their only distribution methods instead.

Fully half of all prime time Internet download traffic in the states was a licensed Netflix stream before Netflix offered a streaming-only service. Walmart.com stocks 132 internet-enabled HDTVs.

It has reached the point where your cable service will stream to every media player in your home.

someone else will gladly come and take their place because there are many other film studios across the globe other than Hollywood

The UK has been successful in the US market and now and again the Canadians.

Japan has a niche market in animation. But as a significanr cultural export the Hollywood product has no peer.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Because it enables it to exist. The whole idea of subscriber based content is to limit distribution to those who paid.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I view hardware based DRM as far worse. It means I literally cannot trust my computer to be mine anymore.

Now we are talking about a separate matter altogether. I believe DRM should be limited to media and prefer it to be limited to subscription based media.

The idea that the TC platform being used to control which OS I use is something I didn't agree too. I also don't see anything wrong with TC hardware used as a peripheral to facility media playing. I didn't say TC should be used to control the use of the actual computer.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "without any known security track record whatsoever and will be a mess of implementations from everyone and his uncle?"

There's also a suspicion it will have to be even harder to sandbox if they want to ensure their precious content gets directly to your screen without possibility of you tampering with it.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What's wrong with you people? How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again?

Which part of " Personally I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content. It's when it prevents my viewing of content that I purchased (non-subcriber based content) I think it can be too excessive. Especially when it only seems to deter the honest folks." do you not understand?

The topic is DRM to view subscription based media using a web browser. You appeared to be starting a new topic which concerns DRM of purchased media. Please try to stay on topic.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

One more thing.

How many times do you have to lose your entire music, e-book, or game collection, have your systems root kitted, and even be accused of piracy and shaken down, before you'll refuse to ever knowingly consent to this invasive DRM again?

I have yet to have any of that happen to me. Why? Well because I purchased non-DRM EPUB files from independent publishers like PragProg. I purchase non-DRM MP3 files from people who sell them. I do not buy single player games that require me to login to use, and I do not own a XBOX or any game console that locks my games to a particular console. I vote with my money and I suggest you do the same.

I do use video and music subscription services but I expect the content to "disappear" as soon as I cancel my subscription.

Re:impediments to access?

[Jockle]

I'm still not sure how it's possible to not see anything wrong with DRM (of any kind). You might as well have come from a different planet; your thought process is completely alien to me.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't know why it is foreign to you. Maybe because I actually pay for my stuff or maybe the concept of renting or subscribing to a media service is beyond your comprehension. It's very simple concept to grasp. I pay a reduced price with the full understanding that the media will either need to be returned or will become unplayable after a certain amount of time.

Re:impediments to access?

[UltraZelda64]

If they want to take control of our machines and make them obey THEM instead of us, then they *should* have to do the extra work... or keep their garbage off the public web in the first place if they want no eyes to see it. All this would do if implemented is add a massive FAILURE right into the HTML5 standard. DRM is practically meant to be broken--this implementation would just be cracked before the final standard is ever even released. And then, companies will continue to use their own proprietary garbage DRM plug-ins... and that's the way it should be. Keep that fucking garbage OUT of the web browser/standards.

Re:impediments to access?

[Jockle]

Maybe because I actually pay for my stuff

Being opposed to DRM does not mean that you don't buy anything. For instance, I'll gladly give my money to places such as Good Old Games because their games are DRM-free. Renting or not, DRM comes at the price of freedom, and that's not something people should be willing to give up so they can be briefly entertained.

Re:impediments to access?

[MrL0G1C]

True, I guess it's not pronounced 'mooks' then.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML5 DRM cannot be implemented by any FOSS.

Tuff shit for FOSS.

Re:impediments to access?

[wagnerrp]

By definition, DRM exists to protect the content from the user. Following that logic, no user can ever implement any system that interfaces with DRM in a secure manner. DRM cannot be "supported by all", as it can only be supported by those vetted and licensed by the group managing the DRM mechanism. It has no right in an open standard, as you are not freely able to implement it.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the only argument against DRM that actually matters: DRM does not stop people from stealing the content. It only stops legal, paying consumers from accessing it when and where they paid to access it.

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

If there is a DRM module/driver in the kernel we are there already. TC must control the computer to do any DRM.

Windows users have already crossed this bridge with trusted content path.

Re:impediments to access?

[FuzzNugget]

Devil we know versus the devil we don't.

I'll take the first one and *not* corporatize the fundamental construct of the web, thanks.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Being opposed to DRM does not mean that you don't buy anything. For instance, I'll gladly give my money to places such as Good Old Games because their games are DRM-free.

I agree. I was giving possible reasons on why the concept is foreign to you. I also purchase games from GOG for the very same reason. That's because I expect to keep the games I paid for. Renting and Subscribing have no such expectation.

Renting or not, DRM comes at the price of freedom, and that's not something people should be willing to give up so they can be briefly entertained.

Now you reached the point of reductio ad absurdum. You are completely ignoring legitimate uses for DRM in order to support your argument to outright ban it. Just because some people will abuse it doesn't mean it should not exist. Nothing prevents you from voting with your money. If you think the DRM is too restrictive then don't buy it.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that ordinary people have tons of hardware that doesn't satisfy trusted path requirements?

I bet you couldn't name a SINGLE ONE content provider on the 'net that actually requires trusted path. None of the more popular ones at least. That's why even Netflix (Silverlight "DRM" and all) actually works in wine. Trust me, there's no "secure" path implemented in wine.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

TC must control the computer to do any DRM.

Actually TC must control the output of the media. It doesn't actually control the computer. The worse case is like having a media output device except this one "borrows" the use of your video card, sound card, hdmi port, etc. Otherwise, it like a black box which does the decoding.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's implementation of a CDM may be quite strict, indeed. That probably wouldn't be the case for one made by Netflix for Windows (or even by Microsoft), considering all the hardware users expect it to behave on. People simply have TONS of displays etc. that do not support secure path, thus rendering all attempts of utilizing it moot.

Netflix, even with Silverlight "DRM" and all, actually works in wine; trust me, there's no secure path in wine.

That being said, I don't support any DRM extensions to HTML5 spec. It's a *good* thing that plugins are only available on few platforms, and it's even better if people find them annoying. That puts the pressure on Hollywood to follow the music industry and stop clinging onto DRM, as it's only hurting them.

Re:impediments to access?

[FuzzNugget]

Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all

Mmm, right, you mean like how they would *never* sell music without DRM?

Of course they won't if we just roll over and continue letting them fuck us in the ass. The MAFIAA are like terrorists: you don't negotiate with them because it tells them that you're willing to accept their demands and they'll come back for more and hit harder the next time.

The thing we need to remember is that the web can survive without them; they cannot survive without the web. How the W3C can cave like this defies logic and belief.

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

One more thing:

The HTML 5 spec only standardizes the way DRM is indicated to the client browser. It doesn't actually do anything with your OS or anything outside of your web browser.

I just noticed we have travelled off topic.

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's stopping anyone from creating a Flash lite.

It's a *good* thing there are downsides to using plugins. It is and never was a reason to add DRM into HTML5 spec.

Re:impediments to access?

[Jockle]

Now you reached the point of reductio ad absurdum.

I don't think it's absurd at all.

in order to support your argument to outright ban it.

Where did I say that it should be 'banned'?

Just because some people will abuse it doesn't mean it should not exist.

But since I believe that DRM itself is harmful, its mere existence qualifies as abuse to me.

If you think the DRM is too restrictive then don't buy it.

I already don't buy anything with DRM. Where did I say otherwise?

Re:impediments to access?

[hobarrera]

So we need DRM to support things like discographics?
Great, let's scrap those plans for DRM then, and see if they (and their deprecated business model) go away once and for all!

Re:impediments to access?

[h4rr4r]

If it can access PCI devices it owns the computer. Ever hear of DMA?

Re:impediments to access?

[fa2k]

Correction: it's a(n) MOOC not MOOCS ;)

Re:impediments to access?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You may want to read up on Trusted Platform Module. It is already present in nearly all PC and notebooks currently in production. Drivers for TPM are already included in the Linux kernel. The output device scenario was called HDCP and I believed that was supported (or circumvented) in Linux a while back.

Re:impediments to access?

[ras]

It is, yes, but with e.g. Flash or Silverlight you get a large, fat binary,

You have listed some of their disadvantages. How about listing their advantages as well:

• These large blobs run on just about all hardware. They could even run on Android. Granted not iOS, but that is a commercial decision on Apple's part, not a technical one.
• These large blobs implement the DRM entirely in software, which means technically the can run on anything.
• The fact hat Netflix, Youtube and whatever are happy with these blobs means, despite their claims if they don't get this they will withdraw all content, the reality is they were prepared to use a slightly weaker form of DRM if that was all they were given.

If the W3C's proposed DRM scheme insisted that there be one standardised software only DRM implementation that existed in every browser, then I would be happy enough. In the case that W3C would be behaving like a standards body and ensuring there was a single standard that could be run by everything.

In this case they are doing the reverse. The current proposal will break the one thing that makes the web useful. It is a truly universal platform, meaning any content can be view anywhere. From that point of view it is actually worse than what we have now with proprietary plugins.

Re:impediments to access?

[colinrichardday]

Does Netflix (or its users) account for 30% of US ISP revenue?

Re:impediments to access?

[kermidge]

Seems to me DRM is a scam anyway; it doesn't do what it's claimed to and in the end only screws customers. I'm not bright enough to understand the benefit to us for including a hook for it as part of a web standard. (Yes, I read all the stuff to get this far, and it still doesn't make sense to me.)

What the people pushing DRM to the naive don't seem to understand, on the surface, is that some people will pay for what they want, and some people won't pay for what they want but find a way to get it anyway. DRM doesn't change this.

I first met DRM in '89 via a game on floppy. Floppy got a bad sector, I'm out a game, 'cuz an archive copy wasn't allowed and could not be made from the standard desktop. (Well, there is a difference between allowed and possible, so I did have a backup; otherwise I was out the price of the game.) It was an instructive meeting, and I've seen nothing yet to change my first opinion of DRM. It's wrong-headed.

Re:impediments to access?

[Stuarticus]

Atleast in the case of movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed without any sort of a DRM at all,

Haven't they been doing exactly that with OTA broadcasting and VHS videos for years?

Re:impediments to access?

[bzipitidoo]

Which part? This: "I see nothing wrong with DRM for subscription based content." Well, I see everything wrong with that. DRM is categorically unacceptable.

You think it's okay to have DRM on, say, cable TV? And it's okay to implement this or a similar service on your computer, right down to the DRM? I disagree. Strongly. Either I must give up control of my computer to powers that have demonstrated time and again that they are not to be trusted with such control, or I must set up a sandbox, a totally separate system specially for viewing DRM content. I will take a third option. I just won't view it.

Now, if DRM gets shoved onto our systems in the form of browsers that conform to an HTML standard that has DRM grafted on, then to be secure we would have to hack the browsers to remove that part, or just not have browsers on any of our computers that have sensitive data. Wouldn't do to have the DRM capable software make a mistake and accidentally erase financial records. Do you recall the year Turbo Tax screwed with the boot sector of their customer's hard drives, endangering all the data on them? And do you suppose that fundamental attitude has changed? These people still really think that it's acceptable to put their customers' data at risk in order to secure their "property", and only grudgingly refrain from doing so in the face of customer wrath and lawsuits. Let up on them, and they will be right back with more DRM.

Browsers are quite creaky and vulnerable enough, with drive by and click hijacking and the like, without deliberately adding DRM to the mess. That's the last thing we should allow. We try so hard to secure our systems, let's not blow it with a big mistake like voluntarily opening the door to DRM.

We don't have DRM on AM or FM radio, or broadcast TV. We are free to record any broadcast we want. We should aim for the broadcast TV model, not the cable TV model.

Re:impediments to access?

[nobodie]

"movies content providers will never allow their content to be streamed"
I am tempted to use the "that's what they want you to think" meme, but that's not really it.

It is that we have the creativity to find EITHER a way to get around the DRM if it is imposed in HTML5, OR find a way to deliver content that protects the true rights holders as much as they should be protected, and the end-users (who are paying some amount, even if it is just the cost of their internet connection for access to the content).

Now, let's take a second and decide which of these two basic approaches (busting imposed DRM or delivering content to everyone) would lead to more useful and productive innovation in the future, and therefore grow our technology and our society?

Does that give a different slant on the question?

Re:impediments to access?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Big Media were doing well, then Zynga would not be dying right now.

I think what will happen is the Internet2 will reroute around the DRM damage and heal itself, just like the original Internet did and does.

Finally ...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone with backbone!

Re:Finally ...

[TWiTfan]

It's a nice symbolic gesture, but symbolic is all it is. The major studios will never allow streaming services live Netflix to stream their content without DRM, so whether it's built into HTML5 or not, DRM *will* be added. They'll just do it with a 3rd party app. It's either that or kiss any mainstream content goodbye.

Re:Finally ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice symbolic gesture, but symbolic is all it is. The major studios will never allow streaming services live Netflix to stream their content without DRM, so whether it's built into HTML5 or not, DRM *will* be added. They'll just do it with a 3rd party app. It's either that or kiss any mainstream content goodbye.

It was a nice symbolic guesture of Amazon to offer DRM free MP3s, but the RIAA and Apple will never allow their content to be available DRM free and Amazon will have nothing to sell... oh wait.

I see a lot of cowards in this thread and it surprises me. Do the smart thing and say, "No". Which entertainment group recently suggested they should be able to remotely disable your machine for suspected piracy. I forget... had something to do with media... movies maybe...

But you know, let's give them a standard "plugin" interface. Instead of "bloated Flash" I hope you all enjoy the 50 separate implementations of DRM you get, with variable stability and attack vectors.

Re:Finally ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm. So where do you stand on this issue? It's hard to figure out from your choice of words.

Re:Finally ...

[TWiTfan]

It's hardly cowardly to make reasonable DRM concessions on streaming services like Netflix, Spotify, etc. I don't have any problem with DRM on *rented* material. So that means there is going to be *some* form of DRM out there, even if they strip it for music and movies that you buy (which I would personally prefer).

Freedom doesn't mean getting everything for free.

Re:Finally ...

[maccodemonkey]

But you know, let's give them a standard "plugin" interface. Instead of "bloated Flash" I hope you all enjoy the 50 separate implementations of DRM you get, with variable stability and attack vectors.

Flash already has it's own DRM plugin architecture. I've seen many sites implement it.

Re:Finally ...

[MechaStreisand]

Then you're the enemy, and who cares what you think? There's no reason to give in to these thugs. They need the web more than the web needs them.

Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[blarkon]

While I understand why they've taken this position, "The Internet" != "WWW". Increasingly content producers are publishing content through app stores because apps provide content creators with a piece of mind that distribution across the DRM free web does not.

We will get to see the result of the grand experiment of publishing content on the web versus through apps. Content follows the money. If there is more money to be generated distributing content over a DRM free web, that's where it will stay. But if there is more money to be made distributing it through locked down apps on locked down platforms - well there's no reason to think that people won't abandon any technology as quickly as they adopt it if the content that they want to view migrates somewhere else.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The problem is that the "Web" DRM doesn't actually solve the problem of 'content' being moved to nasty proprietary little silos, it just offers a way of embedding your locked-down platform of choice into a web page.

Because the only thing standardized is a few javascript hooks for interacting with the 'Content Decryption Module'(there is a single, toy, javascript-based CDM; but it fails even lax robustness requirements and is somewhere between a 'hello world' example and red herring), and the CDM is free to do whatever it likes for everything from the decryption step to actually painting the frames on the screen, the CDM doesn't replace the 'un-web' proprietary stack, it is that stack.

If, by some magic, this proposal actually were magic-interoperable-web-based-DRM, it'd at least have pragmatic virtues going for it; but it isn't. It's as 'web based' as a site that consists of nothing but a java applet inside an Object tag, or a site that wraps a win32 program in an activex control.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[serviscope_minor]

Content follows the money.

Pardon me, but like hell it does.

A lovely example is Game of Thrones. Apparently the most pirated show in history. So why is it basically impossible to just buy the eposides as they come out?

Content seems to follow the principle of maximum fear. It seems that they are so afraid that people might pay to download an unencumbered version and then pirate it, they'd rather they can't buy it at all (so they definitely pirate it!).

I guess perhaps they can't stand the doubt.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[h4rr4r]

Content does not follow money.

I cannot get "Game of Thrones" recent seasons. It simply is not legally available online. Even if I was ok with itunes I could not get it. So people pirate it. Many of them would be happy to pay, I would be thrilled to pay for DRM free versions.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that OMA DRM, and Marlin were supposed to be part of the grand design for "open, interoperable" DRM (as oxymoronic as it sounds)...

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Thruen]

I'm excited to see the other half of this experiment, where they publish content on the web without DRM and see how it goes... I don't expect it to ever happen, though. That is exactly what they've been fighting this entire time. Content owners have never liked the idea of distributing content online without any DRM, it's been extremely difficult just getting them to come this far from not wanting to distribute online at all. If they ever do try something outside of tightly controlled distribution services, it will be long after those services are generating enough revenue to make any new experiment look as if it's not worth it. The people in control of the entertainment industry are greedy to a point of stupidity, they are control freaks, and they have a long history of refusing to adapt to new technology. Even supposedly family-friendly Disney creates artificial scarcity by pulling movies from store shelves for years at a time, they love that control. You suggest that if there's money to be made on a DRM-free internet, that's where money will stay. I ask you then, why are they trying to incorporate into the HTML5 standard something which would effectively put DRM on the web before attempting to make any money without it? I believe the answer is that they have no interest in even trying anything they don't believe they can control entirely, it's why new technology has always frightened them.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[rjforster]

I know someone who pays for the channel that shows Game Of Thrones but still downloads it so that he gets to watch the show without adverts.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is it basically impossible to just buy the eposides as they come out?

Because HBO sees more money in pushing expensive monthly subscriptions than it does in a pay-as-you-go model ala iTunes. If you think they haven't done extensive analytics, you're nuts.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Xest]

"Content follows the money."

Really? So why has the music industry pursued a decade of decline by completely ignoring what customers want?

The whole reason DRM exists is because the content industries have tried everything but following the money and it's taken technology firms (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Last.fm and so on) to slap them about a bit and drag them and their content towards the money.

Content certainly wont follow the money by itself.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Content does not follow money.

I cannot get "Game of Thrones"...

Don't confuse short term with long term. The issue with Game of Thrones is due to all kinds of tail wagging the dog problems like the inertia of the cable industry, foreign distribution contracts, etc.

Here's a more long-term example -- DIVX. DIVX isn't just missing Game of Thrones, it is missing just about every movie and every TV show ever.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[serviscope_minor]

Because HBO sees more money in pushing expensive monthly subscriptions than it does in a pay-as-you-go model ala iTunes.

ummm and how's that working out for them? They get plenty of subscriptions and... the most pirated show in history.

In other words there are vast quantities of people out there who want to watch it but have no mechanism to buy it.

If you think they haven't done extensive analytics, you're nuts.

If you think all businesses are engaged in the ruthlessly efficient search for profit, then you are beyond deluded. HBO is owned by one of the big media companies (other subsidiaries of their owner are members of the MPAA---that famously forward looking organisation).

If you don't believe that businesses would ignore masses of profit in order to chase some quixhotic quest, then you're nuts.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[citizenr]

>So why is it basically impossible to just buy the eposides as they come out?

But it is, Advertisers pay for the content just as it comes out. Your eyeballs are NOT the main clients of HBO, you are a commodity HBO sells to its real clients.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Warbothong]

While I understand why they've taken this position, "The Internet" != "WWW". Increasingly content producers are publishing content through app stores because apps provide content creators with a piece of mind that distribution across the DRM free web does not.

We will get to see the result of the grand experiment of publishing content on the web versus through apps. Content follows the money. If there is more money to be generated distributing content over a DRM free web, that's where it will stay. But if there is more money to be made distributing it through locked down apps on locked down platforms - well there's no reason to think that people won't abandon any technology as quickly as they adopt it if the content that they want to view migrates somewhere else.

That's fine with me, but the major difference is that those who want the DRM should have to pay for it, either by developing and maintaining it or by paying someone to do so. DRM is a Red Queen's race; you have to run as fast as you can just to stay where you are. Universal, Sony, etc. want to stay where they are without running the race, so they're trying ride in a sedan chair carried by browser developers.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[dbug78]

I haven't had HBO since I was a kid, so maybe things have changed, but isn't it commercial-free? Isn't that the whole point of paying the premium for it?

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[serviscope_minor]

Well that's the really stupid thing. The studios are not only competing with free, they're competing with vastly better as well.

Compare what I could do if I used the pirate bay:

* Download a file to watch later
* Not worry about my crap DSL connection (I live in London, not out in the sticks) causing stuttering, drop outs, etc.
* Be able to watch it in my living room which has wi-fi blocking walls, preventing the possibility of streaming.
* Be able to watch it on my big external screen (the laptop came with a VGA adapter, and nothing for the micro HDMI port) so I use analog.
* Be able to use my favourite media player that has a user interface that I like.
* Be able to transcode it and stick it on a USB stick, and then play it on my in-law's set top box which seems to be able to play such things. Actually many TVs can now play things directly from USB sticks. This is not a rare feature.
* Be able to watch it on my phone.
* Download using a nice client which allows me to be able to set priorities for downloads etc so that the earlier shows download first, and seems to be able to reliably saturate my connection.

And if I paid for it, then I could do:
* None of the above.

The thing is that the current options for paying are essentially worse in just about every measurable way than pirating. It's not just the cost. Actually, I'd happily pay £2 per week to watch an episode of series I follow, but I'd never spend £50 on the 25 episode DVD set. And I'd love to pay and just get a nice AVI or MKV or MP4 (really, do impossible proportioned women really want to date my testicles?) which I can save to my hard disk and then view at my leisure.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[serviscope_minor]

you are a commodity HBO sells to its real clients

No I'm not, since HBO have made it impossible for me to pay them money to watch their shows, they have no way of controlling my viewing or funnleing me towards advertisers.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who pays for the channel that shows Game Of Thrones but still downloads it so that he gets to watch the show without adverts.

Uh...bullshit?

HBO doesn't have ads. In fact, if you have HBO, you can legally stream Game of Thrones from their website.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[FalcDot]

No, they do not sell the episodes individually because they want people to buy a whole subscription.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Taibhsear]

It seems that they are so afraid that people might pay to download an unencumbered version and then pirate it, they'd rather they can't buy it at all (so they definitely pirate it!).

I like my Game of Thrones videos like I like my soldiers. Unsullied.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[sl4shd0rk]

content producers are publishing content through app stores

That's fine, let them bloat up the DRM in every app they publish then. The foundation of the Internet, or whatever you want to call it, needs to be based on open standards which are unencumbered by corporate interest. If it is not then you end up with something like the network provided by mobile carriers.

Nobody innovates, nobody breaks new ground, nothing new happens unless it generates revenue for the carrier. This closed system allows for monopolies to flourish while the user experience does not. Who can honestly say they are satisfied with the performance of their mobile device? Nobody. Nobody gets the performance they expected when they signed up and the contract keeps you chained-in for it's duration. Nobody is free to innovate a new solution to fix the current system because they are not able to implement it freely.

The reason this hasn't happened on the Internet yet is because of all the open standards and information available about how the technology is implemented. Yes, there are layers of proprietary software built on top of those open standards that limit who can use the service, with what browser, and with what operating system (eg: Amazon+Firefox+Flash does not work on Linux but will work with Silverlight on Windows). This is the direction the entire internet will go if you decide that you could care less about the technology running it.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[hedwards]

HBO doesn't have advertisements. The people who subscribe to HBO are the real clients.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Yer Mom]

Isn't HBO US-only, though?

Game of Thrones is certainly on a different channel here in the UK. I don't get that channel, but as far as I know, it has adverts (as I can't see Rupert Murdoch running a channel without them...)

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

ah of course. it's just a time issue, which is a matter of perspective.

you've got this all figured out.

given enough time, all problems will be solved and the perspectives reflecting as such.

we'll all be dead.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[jonwil]

Ok, so HBO gets $x per month per subscriber from the cable companies. All they need to do is to offer a no-cable-required a-la-carte subscription that earns them at least $x per month per subscriber after any costs they have that they dont have for cable subscribers are taken out.
They still get at least the same amount of money if people switch to a-la-carte as they do for subscribers on cable plus they get a whole bunch of new subscribers who wont pay for cable but will pay for a-la-carte.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

With the smartphone/tablet model, publishers skip generic interfaces like browsers and just build apps directly. What they do internally for security and payments is their own business.

Browser/flash players that connect over the Internet and play as generic player's days may be numbered anyway.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[citizenr]

Are you sure? Last time I watched HBO it had commercials before the movie, just not every 10 minutes during programs.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[605dave]

Wait, what channel is showing GOT with commercials? HBO is commercial free, so by definition if he is paying for HBO he is getting it commercial free. I'm confused.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[hedwards]

Has that really changed? If that's the case, then what's the point of subscribing?

Anyways, if it's not during the movie, then the likelihood of getting any views is even lower than if you're doing it in the middle.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[antdude]

You can wait and buy the latest aired episodes the next day and if you're in the correct country (e.g., USA) from various places like Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, etc. What bugs me is why can't we RENT and not buy the episodes? Ugh.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I paid for it, then I could do:
* None of the above.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you download it from PirateBay for the format convenience doesn't prevent you from being a responsible adult and also paying for the product when it comes out.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

Since HBO doesn't have ads that doesn't seem likely.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[kermidge]

A quibble, if you will. Netflix runs on my Linux desktop via a tweaked Wine, and Amazon ebooks work via Kindle for the desktop.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no adverts on Game of Thrones so someone is full of BS.

Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. promos before and after. not sure what the other one was talking about. the shows are not interrupted. occasionally superceded (this week the Liberace movie ran in the GoT time slot.) but not sliced up with ads for beer, etc.

Re:Scared of evolution?

[thaylin]

DRM is not an evolution, it is a forced through solution to keep content FROM evolving.

Objection to the formal objection.

[limaCAT76]

I don't want to be slave of plugins.
I don't want to be slave of browsers.
I don't want anymore to be slave of ECOSYSTEMS making me have three or four platforms just to be able to access content.

I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

The DRM scheme proposed is essentially just a unified method of feeding proprietary CDMs (the equivalent of a plugin really) with data. In all likelihood only certain browsers and platforms will be able to play videos from certain sites by default (mainly Chrome and IE on Windows). They are standardizing fragmenting HTML implementations, it is exactly what you said you don't want. Pathetic that people STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

The encrypted data needs to be passed to something that will decrypt it. This decryption module won't be cross-platform. So we'll achieve the goal of getting rid of silverlight (a platform-dependent, closed-source piece of code that decrypts content) and replacing it with a decryption module (a platform-dependent binary-only piece of code that decrypts content). Truly a victory for an open web... ;-)

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Idimmu Xul]

what he said!

When we rented videos from Blockbuster did we bitch and moan about having to return it?

One of the main gripes about DRM is lack of transferability or consistency due to everyone using their own incompatible DSM standards. Standardising on this should mean someone with a Netflix account will get to stream videos on not just Windows (hopefully without Silverlight) but also their standards compliant Linux desktop, Mac and possibly phone and tablet all via the browser.

If the DSM is too invasive, there will always be piracy, if that floats your boat. But DRM in the browser creates more choice and more options, choice and options that we otherwise don't have right now.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[geminidomino]

Standardising on this should mean someone with a Netflix account will get to stream videos on not just Windows (hopefully without Silverlight) but also their standards compliant Linux desktop, Mac and possibly phone and tablet all via the browser.

It will not mean that. At all.

You might want to actually get the details about what you're speaking out in favor of, before you actually put your support behind it.

This is anything but unified DRM.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Attila Dimedici]

I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

That would be fine if that was being proposed. However, what is being proposed is that HTML have a tag that calls something that will have to be written for each platform (and thus will only be written for those platforms the content producers consider worth their while to support) in order to decrypt video that is sent with DRM. Of course that thing that is called by the tag (it is no longer called a plugin, but it looks just like one except that it is called from a different place in the code) will be different for every content provider (unless we are lucky and they all decide to use a third party DRM module. Which is unlikely, since most of the content providers are likely to write their own DRM module which they will try to sell to everyone else).

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't want to be slave of plugins.

I don't want to be slave of browsers.

I don't want anymore to be slave of ECOSYSTEMS making me have three or four platforms just to be able to access content.

I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.

This proposal doesn't free you from plugins, or provide 'cross-platform DRM'. It just renames 'plugins' to 'content decryption modules' and provides absolutely no requirement as to how cross platform they are or aren't(indeed, they explicitly state 'CDM may use or defer to platform capabilities' and may handle all steps from decryption to actually drawing on the display).

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This standard doesn't standardize the DRM, it just standardizes the interface for interacting with the DRM module...

The 'Content Decryption Module' itself is not part of the standard, and there are no requirements as to it being cross platform, consistent, transferable, or anything else except that it provide a few javascript interfaces to twiddle. That's it.

It's "Standardized" in the sense that Silverlight, Flash, and Java are "standardized" because they can all be embedded with the 'object' tag...

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[grahamm]

There is no technical reason why the decryption modules could not be cross-platform. They could be implemented in an 'intermediate' language such Java Bytecode or UCSD p-code which can be run on (almost) any platform.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Threni]

I'm failing to see why this is so bad.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

Sure there is, the decryption module can only output to some sort of content protected path. Otherwise recording its output would be trivial.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

Because it is pointless.
The end result is the same as today. You would have a netflix and an itunes CDM instead of plugin and they would only work on Windows and OSX, since those offer protected content paths. The OSX version would of course lag behind.

So just to rename plugin to CDM you want to pollute the standard?

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no technical reason why MS Office don't exist on Linux either.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like ability of NOT having proprietary modules for Linux Unix Debian/GNU?
So as Linux user, what I am missing? Nothing. So it should not be standard for me. I can create standard out of my as*, why don't you adapt it?

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

But DRM in the browser creates more choice and more options, choice and options that we otherwise don't have right now.

If the browser is the one enforcing the DRM, there's always a simple way around it, as the source codes of major browsers are open. Nothing prevents the browser from lying to the server, either. The only way to make an enforceable system would be to have a closed source component that enforces the DRM at kernel level. Add some cryptography and vendor-specific keys and you'll get a very closed, locked-in system.

This would mean that the DRM system would work only on systems with closed source components, and possibly on only those supported by some DRM organization. This would not give the users any more options than currently. If you want DRM, keep it at user level (plugins, etc).

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

Like how Flash/Java/Silverlight pollute the HTML standard? Oh wait, they don't - they all use the object tag.

Besides, a CDM is simply a validator and decryptor. No need for a full-scale runtime environment. The entire module could be written by one person in a couple of days. If well-designed, porting would be a case of throwing a couple of compiler switches.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way, there is no technical reason silverlight can't be cross-platform. The only thing stopping it is that there is no incentive to do so, which will be the same problem with this standard.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

So why not just stick with the object tag then?

It cannot fulfill its role if that is all it does. In that case copying its output would be trivial.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[thaylin]

Not even remotely the same. Returning videos to blockbuster is not even remotely the same as DRM, in fact the reverse is true, as while it was in your possession you could copy it.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[BasilBrush]

In all likelihood only certain browsers and platforms will be able to play videos from certain sites by default (mainly Chrome and IE on Windows).

That would be true if the EFF have their way. But not true if the HTML standardization happens. Yes the DRM is always of necessity a proprietary blob. But with HTML standardization the same blob can work for all browsers on a given OS.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

Because the object tag was designed for arbitrary content. The video tag is specifically designed for video, and adding a drmID attribute (for example) would be a logical and obvious thing to do. The browser would then load the correct CDM, setting its input to the stream and its output to the protected path the OS provides.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

"HTML standardization" is not magic that makes vendor-provided black boxes work on any given platform.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

My OS does not have such a protected path. Thus I gain nothing, in fact I lose since this means soon flash will not be what plays these videos anymore.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

Fair point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a protected path cannot be provided at some point. The ideal would obviously be no DRM, but then the ideal would be we all live in a world without pollution, robots to perform day-to-day tasks, and limitless money meaning no poverty. We can't have everything, so we try to make the best of what we have.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

Actually it cannot.
There is no way to provide such a thing when I can build my own kernel.

Less intrusive DRM is always better than more intrusive.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

Actually it cannot. There is no way to provide such a thing when I can build my own kernel.

Less intrusive DRM is always better than more intrusive.

If a kernel module existed to provide the protected path, then you could include that module when building the kernel. I'm guessing such a module doesn't currently exist, but that doesn't mean no-one will ever write one.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

If such a module existed there would be nothing preventing me from modifying it to dump into a file.

Unless you think I am going to be loading a closed source kernel module for DRM. That would be even worse.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

If such a module existed there would be nothing preventing me from modifying it to dump into a file.

True. But then again, it's not like closed-source DRM has proved impossible to crack ;)

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[h4rr4r]

Sure, but an open source DRM kernel module would quickly lead to a broken implementation being added to most Distros.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Skapare]

I prefer to have browsers that are NOT made by corporations. Browser developers will have to choose between making a browser without DRM and not be considered HTML5 compliant, and paying tens of thousands of dollars to corporations just to get a license key to decode the DRM. Putting DRM is HTML5 as a standard locks out all but corporate made browsers. It also locks out full browser source code that you can compile for yourself and end up with a fully standards compliant browser.

Let corporations come up with that own standard for a uniform ADD ON for DRM. They already know how to do that. Open and non-open should have a clear dividing line. Doing this won't prevent having DRM protected content (install the DRM plugin and you have it) displayable. It will just give people a choice that either way leaves them with a standards compliant browser.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is: they won't.
Any serious DRM will have to rely on OS level restrictions (for example Protected Media Path).
There are serious incentives for a content publisher to implement DRM this way, relying on obfusciated and OS specific modules, which will effectively destroy interoperability.
On the other hand, there is little point in maintaining a workable version of your EME decryption module for each and every platform / browser, as this will only increase development costs.
Also: the more versions of DRM you have to maintain, the greater the chance a glitch will be exploited to break the DRM.
I expect the following message to pop up everywhere on the web: "You must use browser X on OS Y to view this content".

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Tivoization, good sir, Tivoization...

Plenty of DRMed-tighter-than-a-drum systems run linux, some vendors of such even comply with the GPL. The ability to build your own kernel, though, is pretty much academic when you can't boot your own kernel.

(or, increasingly likely in our SoC-riddled 'mobile' and STB world, the 'CDM' will be implemented as part of the hardware that supplies accelerated video decode: if you are running on a vendor-blessed platform, the browser will pass the encrypted stream to the hardware/firmware, which will decrypt it, decompress it, and write it directly to a video overlay on the screen(that area of framebuffer being in protected RAM, naturally). The OS will never even see it...

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[limaCAT76]

The encrypted data needs to be passed to something that will decrypt it. This decryption module won't be cross-platform. So we'll achieve the goal of getting rid of silverlight (a platform-dependent, closed-source piece of code that decrypts content) and replacing it with a decryption module (a platform-dependent binary-only piece of code that decrypts content). Truly a victory for an open web... ;-)

Right. It will be a way that will advertise which decryption systems are installed and tell the server to serve content for Windows, Apple or even a future system with a browser based on linux, without leaving the browser ecosystem.

The object plugin is a terrible counter-example because objects and plugins are more free to bring havok on the target system, ready to open your machine to random security bugs via their runtimes, rather than just stream some media stream (and media streams hopefully have better and tighter, content not marked for execution) that will be able to be decrypted and ran by the OS.

Think about this, you can also cook up a page that will see that someone, as advertised by the browser, has installed a DRM system and serve them a stern talk by st. ignucius himself.

By removing video from the tag is one less step for me to open video: now I have to tell flashblock to go off and to re-enable the flash plugin on that page, to whitelist the plugin on some websites (like streaming sites) who still can't cope with the idea of users that keep flash off both for ads and for malware. On mobile system it will also mean one less need to install "yet another shiny app that you will have to keep updated" on a phone.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

meanwhile the alternatives are flash and silverlight. Fantastic. At least we can hold out hope if something like this comes into being.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[suutar]

if I control the rest of the kernel, the CDM cannot tell whether the protected path module is really protected.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

This comment serves equally well here

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even remotely the same. Returning videos to blockbuster is not even remotely the same as DRM, in fact the reverse is true, as while it was in your possession you could copy it.

Ripping a disc you rented from Blockbuster is just as illegal as copying files that are under DRM. That Blockbuster can't physically prevent you from breaking the law doesn't really make it different in any real capacity.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[suutar]

I think I'm not understanding your point of view. You said that it was possible that a secure path could be added later; I've asserted that while a path can be added, it's not possible to keep it secure. Given that, would you expect any content provider to bother creating a CDM for such an environment? I wouldn't, which brings us back to the "I gain nothing, in fact I lose because Flash won't play stuff" state.

Re:Objection to the formal objection.

[RaceProUK]

I've asserted that while a path can be added, it's not possible to keep it secure. Given that, would you expect any content provider to bother creating a CDM for such an environment?

Applies to any OS - with the right stuff, any secure path can be subverted. It's whether it's worth the effort to do so.

Impediment to interoperability...

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because the current scheme of using proprietary playback plugins that have their own set of security flaws and performance issues, if they exist at all for your platform of choice, isn't an impediment to interoperability at all.

Hollywood isn't going to go DRM free (yet). DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today. These things must change over time. See: all the stores now selling DRM free music, which would have never happened if the stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood isn't going to go DRM free (yet). DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today. These things must change over time.

What Hollywood is or isn't going to do should be largely irrelevant to the discussion. The web is not their domain.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yeah, because the current scheme ... isn't an impediment to interoperability at all.

Careful of two wrongs make a right.

which would have never happened if the stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat

Yet we've already been through all this, know that DRM-free distribution is the most successful sales model, and nearly all the movie companies own record companies and know this already. So it's not the same situation - this time they realize the status quo but also realize that they want to control the player and tell people how, when, and where they can enjoy the content they acquire.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[serviscope_minor]

First you complain that:

using proprietary playback plugins that have their own set of security flaws and performance issues, if they exist at all for your platform of choice,

But then you go and say:

DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today.

Seriously, can you read TFA, or at least *some* of the comments in any of the previous thrads?

The DRM standard precisely requires a proprietary, unspecified non standard CDM with every flaw you already listed.

The ONLY thing that the "standard" offers is a vague air of legitimacy.

Now I see this moderated as +5 funny, but I can't actually tell if you're joking.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[h4rr4r]

This changes nothing. They are simply renaming plugins to CDMs. Those will still be only available for limited platforms and each store/site will have its own.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why this is 'Funny'. I'd rate you up even more if I could. For the love of anything if I could have an HTML5 Netflix or $whatever without some disgusting wine hack or otherwise it would be a small miracle. I love telling people Linux is awesome and that then proceed to tell them, no most your games won't work (thank you Steam/Valve for starting to change this), no you can't use Netflix on it, ...

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[TWiTfan]

The web is not their domain.

No, it's much bigger than the web.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[TheP4st]

The web is not their domain.

It would seem that someone forget sending them the memo.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

The ONLY thing that the "standard" offers is a vague air of legitimacy.

And a vastly reduced attack surface, since there won't be a full-scale run-time, just a simple decrypting module.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[BasilBrush]

Careful of two wrongs make a right.

But there is a lesser of two evils. Given that DRM will happen regardless, making things a bit more standardized and easier for all is better than leaving it more fragmented and harder for all.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[blackiner]

A single decrypting module that runs completely arbitrary data. And it will almost certainly load up that data just like it does images, imediately without asking the user to proceed. The potential for abuse there is quite massive. Furthermore, how common will it be to ask the user to install a new CDM? If it becomes fairly common, we will see malware breaches the likes of which haven't been seen since ActiveX.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[serviscope_minor]

And a vastly reduced attack surface, since there won't be a full-scale run-time, just a simple decrypting module.

Oh yeah, like BD+ which contains an entire VM and runtime so it... wait what was that about a reduced attack surface?

Basically, the CDM is an interface to a binary module. That can contain anything. Therefore any claims you make about the contents of that module are entirely unjustified.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

A single decrypting module that runs completely arbitrary data.

In an environment that can isolate and sandbox it.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[serviscope_minor]

In an environment that can isolate and sandbox it.

And then snaffle the decrypted data...

Yeah that'll work well.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[blackiner]

The CDM is allowed to defer to arbitrary platform APIs, as proposed by the spec. To me, this stronly implies that it will not be sandboxed.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

Then BD+ is poorly designed. There's no reason you can't have a CDM system that isn't isolated and sandboxed.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

In an environment that can isolate and sandbox it.

And then snaffle the decrypted data...

If the design/implementation is flawed.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

Which part of the spec is that? I can't seem to find it.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[blackiner]

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/eme-v0.1/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html

Note the line between CDM and Platform in the image.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[serviscope_minor]

If the design/implementation is flawed.

How so? Surely it is very hard to make a completely sandboxed module from which you can't snaffle the output. I'd imagine it would have to be explicitely not sandboxed.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[bill_mcgonigle]

But there is a lesser of two evils. Given that DRM will happen regardless, making things a bit more standardized and easier for all is better than leaving it more fragmented and harder for all.

I disagree. If it's easy and endorsed by the W3C it will become pervasive and erode years of progress. If it's hard and non-standard, it'll be more rare.

To argue otherwise we'd have to accept that there are not web businesses that do not use DRM because of the complexity, but would continue to refrain from doing so if it were easy. It seems exceedingly unlikely that these do not exist.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

I see it now. Still, it depends on how that link is controlled. The CDM could defer through a layer that enforces the isolation.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

True, no software is 100% secure. Doesn't automatically mean it's a sieve, security-wise.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[blackiner]

Anything in or past the CDM is completely non-standardized and can be implemented however the CDM creator wants, so I very much doubt that there will be a layer that enforces isolation. You would also need to define a set of platform APIs for each platform in this supposed layer, like VA-API, VDPAU, Microsoft's secure content path, Xv, ffmpeg, mcrypt, whatever APIs there are to access some trusted computing path... there is a huge list of APIs that they could need or want, and none of them are listed in the standard, which to me, again, strongly implies they will be able to do whatever they want.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[RaceProUK]

Remember that this is still in the drafting stages, so there's always the possibility these things will be more clearly defined in future drafts.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[Mateo_LeFou]

Interesting article.

I have a question: why so much upstream from Netflix? It seems like the requests and ratings that I send to them would be infinitesimal compared to what they send back down.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[BasilBrush]

But that argument is one of hijacking of standards bodies to the end of pursuing an agenda. That in itself is no less evil than when Microsoft does it.

Re:Impediment to interoperability...

[Anonymous Coward]

What Hollywood is or isn't going to do should be largely irrelevant to the discussion.

The movie industry is a rounding error compared to the size of the book industry, and the music industry is even smaller.
Hollywood is shiny and noisy, but it's not really all that relevant. There are over 500 companies in the world that individually bring in more revenue than the entire movie industry combined.

Here's the answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll take it and like it. Time, and time, and time again.

Nobody wants to hear it, but RMS has it right.

Optional!?

[tuppe666]

optional cross-platform DRM

LOL optional DRM is simply (mandatory) DRM, you either are one side or the other. I personally think that *software* should never contain any DRM.

Re:Optional!?

[BasilBrush]

DRM is always optional. You don't have to buy the product with DRM.

Re:Optional!?

[Skapare]

But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant. or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice ... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?

Re:Optional!?

[MrL0G1C]

You don't have to buy the product with DRM.

You dont get to buy products with DRM, they are rental only.

Re:Optional!?

[BasilBrush]

But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant.

Thats a bit ambiguous. Any browser that doesn't support the DRM API would not be standards compliant. But that doesn't mean that any service needs to use DRM.

or will you show me a fully standards compliant browser that gives me this choice ... and is available in pure source code that I can compile and use the compiled result?

There are multiple open source browsers and they'll continue to be open source. If you want to take the DRM parts out you can. Presumably some people will do that and make their forks public. Whether anyone will bother using such forks is the question. My bet is almost no one will be interested.

Re:Optional!?

[BasilBrush]

You don't buy beer, you only rent it. It doesn't make either particularly unpopular products.

Re:Optional!?

[RR]

But once W3C makes it part of HTML5, then anything w/o DRM support is not standards compliant.

Well, actually, I'm not sure the W3C has ever been relevant to developing new standards that get implemented.

With such a low UID, I'm guessing you were around for the whole HTML4/XHTML debacle. And SVG. And MathML. Part of the problem was that for much of the W3C's history, IE6 was the dominant browser, but the XML madness was madness.

The only way we got to HTML5 is by having a bunch of companies go off and make their own WhatWG, and as soon as HTML5 got into the W3C they announced they were working on the next HTML standards. Outside the W3C.

It's a dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

Principle vs. Pragmatism. The principle camp says that if you don't defend your freedom you lose it. The pragmatists realize that if they don't allow DRM then the standard will fork into two viable streams, HTML5 and HTMLX (let's call it). Browsers will have to support both and we'll have the joys of all the bugs, confusion, and configuration wars that would ensue. Pundits at sites like cnet would be happy though, as they'd have a continuing tech controversy they could write about w/o having to do much research. Ugh. Let's move on with the new standard.

Re:It's a dilemma

[magic maverick]

Last time I posted on the issue I made the point that the pragmatic approach was for the W3C to reject any attempt to have it have anything to do with digital restrictions management tech. Why? Because they gain nothing from it except ire from people who truly want an open web. DRM is the exact opposite of open, and can't be implemented in an open fashion.
It is a misguided principle (everything should be on the open web), that is behind this push. Except that the principle, while nice and all, is actually wrong in this case. DRM and the open web cannot work together.

So, yeah, pragmatism for the win.

Did that Happen!?

[tuppe666]

DRM as a standard in HTML5 is a better place then where we are today...stores of yesteryear hadn't first gotten the RIAA comfortable with digital distribution, then weaned them off the DRM teat.

I am confident that DRM should not be a standard, and the argument that DRM being dropped will happen because companies will get *comfortable*; They don't they would have you electronically chipped if they could get away with it. The reason why DRM was dropped was because customers simply were not happy with it.

Re:Did that Happen!?

[dkf]

I am confident that DRM should not be a standard

Then you can clearly explain why there should not be a standard way to manage the discovery of media type variants handled and to allow the codec and the service provider to communicate securely. While I would agree that there should not be a particular type of DRM-enabled codec mandated, there ought at least to be an official mechanism for the presence of optional software plugin modules capable of doing a particular task (e.g., video playback) and to determine that of the ones that are available, all, some or none of them support DRM that is compatible with what the service provider can provide.

Don't mandate that Netflix works. Mandate enough that they can definitively discover that things won't work under the conditions they are willing to tolerate.

Re:Did that Happen!?

[martin-boundary]

No.

No access

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I am concernned they may keep their crappy so-called "content" all for themselves.

Re:No access

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man, I don't even *OWN* a TV!! And this not only makes me morally superior to everyone who does, but gives me the right to decide what content everyone should get on the internet too!

Re:No access

[Jockle]

Well, if someone is idiotic enough to accept DRM, I'd say it's not exactly difficult to be superior to him/her to begin with, television or not.

Damn Advertisers

[Anonymous Coward]

W3C, and most internet standard bodies, want to build a service hatch into your computer with no lock and key that only the good guys know about so they can run provide you with an awesome software experience. They will say HTML is good enough, but then they need CSS, Java, Javascript, ActiveX, Flash, Silver-light, and the list goes on and on.

Problem is, we've already had this adventure. On Win98, Windows update ran through Internet Explorer which at that time, shared binaries with Explorer; Iexplore.exe installed stuff on your computer through what was at the time activex. And that meant enterprising criminal who found the open service hatch on your computer could install what they want. And what they installed was never really a nice thing.

You ask these same people about security, their response "The internet was meant to be open, Man!"

Before anyone says security is expensive; it really isn't because it compartmentalizes failure. If everyone in a 10,000 user network has admin on every other machine, and wmipvrse.exe decides to go on a rampage eating boot.ini on all those units due to a hardware memory failure, there's an issue. There are other issues there too that are obvious, but giving everyone user rights compartmentalizes that failure to 1 unit. And yes there does come a point where expenditure doesn't result in a saving greater than expenditure, but that's obvious with everything.

These are the same people who refuse to publish a RFC for IPV6 NAT\PAT despite there being an exploit in the wild that causes NIC Firmware on many intel cards to self-immolate when sent malformed SIP Packets; You're going to allow me to see the MAC of your server thus determining the make and model of the card because you don't want to obfuscate the EUC-64 address? These are the same people who came up with Java based webapps to replace ERP systems and sold them to the government and utilities having no concept of security, so when their software become the basis for a rooting exploit, it's only when DHS says uninstall which means institutions now get to think 3x before developing and deploying webapps that they think. Mind you the latest and greatest version of java still has open in the wild root-privilege exploits.

And the RIAA are the same people who want carte-blanche' to turning any PC they want into a smoldering pile of rubble remotely at whim (which is very possible considering firmware-enabled fanbus is very popular on mobile and slimline systems; just make the sucker run too hot a few times and hope for a fire).

HTML 5 is, IMO, already a failed experiment, and Silicon Valley is turning into Hollywood at break-neck speed.

Ultimately, you will find "standards bodies" such as W3C are funded by companies like Microsoft and Google, who have a vested interest in turning their end users into products through "directed advertising". Try going to CNN.com and refreshing the page for 30 minutes on an up to date box, you'll get a virus Delivered through none other than the banner ad on the page. The bad guys are using advertising channels to distribute their binaries because the advertising channels are writing the standards in their favor and want to make things easy for themselves, not you.

Buyer Beware.

Pragmatism vs Compromise

[tuppe666]

How come every time someone talks about pragmatism. It is about me sacrificing something, or me compromising, and we know what happens next...we are expected to do it again..and again.

Lets call pragmatism what it is Users being hit on.

Re:Pragmatism vs Compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets call pragmatism what it is Users being hit on.

Because principled losers like RMS are never hit on and die alone.

Go back to roots.

[grahamm]

W3C should not be including anything like DRM. They should remember that is is HyperText Markup Language. All they need to define is the usage of the 'a' tag, and left some IETF working group define the transport type for video etc. rather than using HyperText Transfer Protocol.

Re:Go back to roots.

[Cenan]

This is not about the DRM or the protection of their content, this is about the massive victory it is to have W3C buckle and accept the bleak world view that Big Media pushes: "everyone is a thief unless we preemptively shackle them". Never mind that the HTML standard has nothing to do with their content, nor is it the right place to define what happens to their content; it is all about winning the argument to be able to build on it further.

What's your actual opinion?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so busy playing corrective geek, SHOW US YOUR STANCE!

Re:What's your actual opinion?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You're so busy playing corrective geek, SHOW US YOUR STANCE!

In case it isn't clear, I think that the plan is a steaming load of shit smeared with a thin layer of dishonesty. By adding just enough references to javascript, and one cripple implementation, the W3C has created the impression(seen abundantly throughout this thread) that 'web DRM' will somehow be magical interoperable, cross-platform DRM, so even if you don't like DRM, at least this DRM will work everywhere and you won't need plugins, why can't you be pragmatic, man? However, it actually fails to solve any problems of interoperability, cross-platform support, plugins, or anything else.

EFF should also go after UEFI

[Anonymous Coward]

Current UEFI implementations would most likely be found illegal in many jurisdictions (anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust... we've heard it all before); just the fact that on a completely new bought machine you have to boot up Windows 8 in order to have *it* enable your hardware to boot the OS of your choice should make it clear there needs to be a real fix for this crap.

Well spoken

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of "as far as I am concerned" didn't enter your small brain?

Re:Well spoken

[RaceProUK]

It appears your humour detection unit has malfunctioned. Don't worry, a new one is on its way, and will arrive in 3-5 business days.

Re:Well spoken

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, be charitable; he was distracted watching "Dance Moms".

Re:Well spoken

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't detect any humour. Maybe mine has malfunctioned too.

pointless

[slashmydots]

If I post a video on youtube to make a bit of money, I am sick of people ripping it off and reuploading it to other sites or even just youtube again to steal my money. If you think amateur youtube enthusiasts like me are mad, try MPAA and RIAA member mega-corporations. So basically if they don't add DRM to HTML5 natively, here comes Silverlight or some other similar bullshit with DRM because there's a market for DRM. The only question is do you want a security nightmare like Flash and Reader and Java running on every computer in the world or DRM natively supported in HTML5?

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cats aren't the only cats in this world, dear sir.

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

If I post a video on youtube to make a bit of money, I am sick of people ripping it off and reuploading it to other sites or even just youtube again to steal my money.

So if you do not make the money you dream of, somebody has stolen it?

Re:pointless

[Skapare]

Where are you gonna post it to make money? Whatever site does that I won't be visiting at all, because there's too much good free stuff to bother with a pay site. And if everyone does this and posts to the pay site, it will end up costing too much and the whole idea of viewing online videos is dead other than for the big companies that have all that marketing to bring in the numbers for their big movies. And besides, if I can see it, I can rip it off, anyway, as can most others (the HDCP technology to feed it encrypted all the way to the monitor is not widely deployed for computers).

Supply and demand. There's still way too much supply.

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

That sucks- but DRM won't fix that and this isn't a standard for DRM. It is more likly to just impedes access for some of your potential viewers.

Re:pointless

[slashmydots]

Do you know how to read? If people literally steal my content and make the money I would have made off of it instead of me, I have a problem with that. I also used to be an author for Demand Media and I made A LOT of money on ad commissions. Then I found out some Chinese website was ripping off my text word for word. They just copied and pasted it and they were ranked higher than my article on Google. 1 article suddenly dropped in income and lost me about $100/mo until the copy was taken down. So yes, IP theft does affect small time, part time and amateur/hobbist people too. If I was elected president, I'd arrest every member of the RIAA and MPAA and dissolve their companies and possibly exile their top level people to another country for crimes against the US legal system but that doesn't mean I don't think HTML5 needs DRM.

Re:pointless

[slashmydots]

I think you misunderstand the most likely implementation of DRM. Let's say I'm a website owner. I control what's on my website, when, and who can view it. It's not even about money. I could be putting out stuff completely for free that I just don't want some Russian or Chinese asshole to upload to some other video site even though I'm not making a penny off it. Also, if I want to make a video not be available on my site anymore, I don't want 5 different unauthorized mirrors of it on 5 different websites that people stole. Just let the website owner control the content of their own website!
That said, I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA and everything to do with them will find some way to make the system completely evil and money-grabbing BS where you can't even access your own content that you paid for half the time. But like I said, if DRM isn't in HTML5 then here comes Silverlight 6.0 or something similar because Netflix (and similar sites) are not going to let users rip off and entire movie and save it to their hard drive. That's not exactly the type of license they paid the studios for.

Re:pointless

[Jockle]

If people literally steal my content

If people literally steal your content, then you won't have it anymore.

and make the money I would have made off of it instead of me

In that case, you never had the money to begin with, so rather than it being a loss, you simply did not gain.

Re:pointless

[suutar]

It's not native.

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was elected president, I'd arrest every member of the RIAA and MPAA and dissolve their companies and possibly exile their top level people to another country for crimes against the US legal system

No, you wouldn't, because the President does not have that kind of power. And no, you weren't hyperbolizing. You said that incredibly stupid thing in complete earnest, because you literally have a first-grader's understanding of civics.

This is why nobody in your life respects you.

Re:Scared of evolution?

[blahbooboo]

DRM is not an evolution, it is a forced through solution to keep content FROM evolving.

Why is this insightful? Evolve into what?

FAKE intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No it's not. The road to hell is paved with fake intentions.

And do not forget that ...

[Skapare]

... HTML5 is not YET (apparently this is coming soon) a real standard. So the only users using it should be those interested in helping to test out the standard. In the mean time ALL web sites should provide a graceful degrade down to HTML4 so their site works in an HTML4-only browser as well as HTML4 can do (which DOES include video, even if most of you web programmers are too lame to understand how to do it). And you don't have to always embed the video ... just make a hyperlink and play it that way. That's worked for over a decade.

Yes, this is a severe problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this proposal is they are trying to include a black box in a W3C standard.
All other techniques and technologies described in the standard can be freely implemented by several competing browsers / libraries, in contrast to DRM decryption modules which are, by design, obfusciated.
It will be practically or legally impossible to create your own implementation of a specific decryption module and so any user who wants to, for example, watch a Youtube movie, must download the 'authorized' decryption module.
Note that DRM is designed to not interoperate as content providers actually have an incentive to limit the platform and/or browser that can run the decription modules, because this will reduce development costs and increase their control over how you consume their content.
And yes, the same arguments could be made for the current "plugin" model, but these goals should NOT be encouraged by including it into a web standard.
The first goal of a standard should be to increase interoperability and provide room for several competing implementations and the inclusion of DRM (which has completely opposite goals and designs) will seriously hamper the this.
If you read the EME standard draft, you will realize it isn't standardizing anything at all, it just gives every publisher a free hand to inject any arbitrary technology into HTML 5, severely hampering the original intention of providing a unified way to include media into web pages.

This would also set a horrible precedent and before long these modules will be used for all kinds of purposes and content, severely fragmenting the web (even worse so if HTML 5 gets used in apps and UI's).

Re:Scared of evolution?

[Nemyst]

There used to be very few obese people. Now there's a lot more obese people. Ergo, obesity is evolution.

Re:Scared of evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your momma!

So the fking hell what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Increasingly content producers are publishing content through app stores because apps provide content creators with a piece of mind that distribution across the DRM free web does not."

What is the problem with that?

Really. What?

And having an amputation is better than gangrene.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, avoiding either is better still.

Why must this content be presented over HTML? Why? I don't hear any complaints that audiobooks aren't presented over a BluRay disk.

Why is not having a browser display this content that isn't part of the Internet and WorldWideWeb but having to have an application do it such a problem that it is NOT POSSIBLE to have it done by app?

If it isn't my computer, YOU pay for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you say, hardware DRM means that it is no longer your computer but the compute of the OS manufacturer/Hardware/content "owner", depending on who has the last say about the hardware DRM.

If they want to do that, then they should buy the computer.

Re:If it isn't my computer, YOU pay for it.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Isn't it a little early in the thread to devolve into Reductio ad absurdum?

Don't post it on youtube, then

[Anonymous Coward]

What you do is you sell someone your stuff and then give it to them so they have it.

If you didn't mean to post it on youtube because people will "rip you off and reupload it", then don't post it on youtube. Problem solved.

Wall them up in their own garden

[Anonymous Coward]

What I would like is for the entertainment industry to be walled up in its own garden, so nothing ever escapes. If anyone wants to be "entertained" they can enter the garden. But the entertainment industry has to stay in their garden and not pollute my world with their tripe. All content must be locked up inside their walled garden permanently. People who need mindless drivel can go inside, but the rest of us will be free of it forever. Almost too good to be true, so it will never happen.

And then you write the kernel to lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you have a propriatory closed kernel driver the rest of the kernel can lie about what it wants to be protected. The rest of the kernel just says "Yup, this is protected path all right!" when it "knows" it isn't.

So therefore the kernel has to be locked down and propriatory so that you can't change it and make it lie to the kernel module.

So now, instead of an app, you have now to write a "plugin" that replaces the entire OS...

Re:And then you write the kernel to lie.

[RaceProUK]

You could also wear a tutu and dance the Bolero. Whether you'd go through all that effort is another matter...

Re:Scared of evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is not an evolution, it is a forced through solution to keep content FROM evolving.

Why is this insightful? Evolve into what?

Literally, anything. DRM is an attempt to bring the ball-and-chain of physical media into a purely digital operating space. You have an environment where new markets and many new things are possible, but the only thing you can think of to capitalise on it is to weight it down with a boat anchor so that it looks and feels just like the old existing marketplace.

What about the next industry?

[macbeth66]

This is being done at the behest of the Entertainment Industry. What happens with the next industry that wants something added to a standard? Where does it end? I have no problem with Netflix, or some other entity, saying that "if you want to use our fee-based service you must use this." But I don't want these add-ons polluting a standard. This is what we have plug-ins for. If you don't like the plug-in, don't use it and don't bitch about not getting a fee-based service.

Re:What about the next industry?

[maccodemonkey]

But I don't want these add-ons polluting a standard. This is what we have plug-ins for.

The plug ins that are... part of the standard? Because plugins are part of the HTML standard, the standard is already "polluted." I'm not sure how one could be fine with plugins in HTML, but freak out when we talk about plugins for video decoding. I mean, that's already the biggest use of the current plugin standard: decoding of videos.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html

Re:Scared of evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be very little pollution.

Now there's more pollution.

What, you don't like pollution? Evolve already!

Stupid position

[drolli]

I dont like DRM. However i dont like it even less that it comes in some undefined ways. Makes it diffcult to avoid or at least estimate its extend. I would prefer it very much if my browser had a warning (similar to the warnings regarding encryption etc) which *shows me* when a webpage tries it.

So i appeciate if we could direct this into a more ordered way.

Obtuse, Obfuscating Slashdot Liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Content should be free, man!

I never hear anyone defend intellectual property on this site. It's kind of sickening. F***ing electro-commies.

Re:Obtuse, Obfuscating Slashdot Liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Now lets see:

On the one hand you have copyright, and patents, both legal monopolies that create central plan markets for whatever peace of content that's covered.

On the other hand we have the position against IP, which advocates a completely free and competive market (yes in such a market the price for a good will tend towards the marginal costs, and when we're talking digital media that's pretty much 0)

How do you figure that the free market stance is communist? seems to me the converse is closer to the truth.

Case and Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Effective immediately, we have ceased all HTML5 development, and will be utilizing an older HTML standard or Flash, or develop our own.

Payback

[Anonymous Coward]

Any web page that establishes a DRM connection to my computer, will be considered a military attack, and will be subject to such a response.

By accessing my computer, all parties agree to my terms and conditions, implied or not, known or unknown, and are subject to change by me without notice.

We can thank RMS for this

[ciaran_o_riordan]

This is great work by EFF.

But I get the feeling that if Stallman hadn't kicked up such a stink about this, other organisations wouldn't be jumping in to help now.

If EFF's objection is successful, some people will look back afterward and say that RMS's petition and public denouncements achieved nothing and only the later campaigns by others were useful, but they'll be missing the point that RMS is the one that whips those other groups out of inaction. He knows he usually can't win battles on his own, and he knows how to highlight a cause and set an example so that he isn't left on his own.

So thanks, EFF, and thanks, Richard.

Why DRM is so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the Hollywierd types want big locks so they can charge the hell out of everyone at every corner, but my objection to those locks is that the internet is a worldwide medium for information. Only some of it (a very small portion of it) is used by the Hollywierd types, yet the DRM they are advocating affects everyone. That's crap.

Which part kills the Innovation?

[JimtownKelly]

In some ways DRM could promote innovation; it's the use of black box code for anything that concerns me. Is there a way to implement DRM in a white box instead?

DRM can't stop movie/music piracy

[alihm]

People saying that really don't understand how the internet works.

Re:Scared of evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this insightful? Evolve into what?

It's obvious that you have no idea what actual content creators, mixers and innovators are doing these days. It's equally obvious that the proponents of DRM do have an idea and are scared.