EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM In HTML5

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday May 30, 2013 @12:07AM from the do-not-want dept.

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."'

62 of 270 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

impediments to access? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 00:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

No DRM will mean no access for anyone!
1. Re:impediments to access? by lesincompetent · 2013-05-30 00:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Are you mentally challenged?
2. Re:impediments to access? by Gaygirlie · 2013-05-30 00:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:impediments to access? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 00:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That sounds like replacing one plugin interface for another one.
4. Re:impediments to access? by Captain+Hook · 2013-05-30 00:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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..
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
5. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:impediments to access? by Gaygirlie · 2013-05-30 00:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
7. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:56 · Score: 2
  
  The word is you not u. You are the one with brain rot it appears. You should find an MOOCS for English.
9. Re:impediments to access? by Cenan · 2013-05-30 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
10. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
11. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 01:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
12. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 01:15 · Score: 2
  
  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.
13. Re:impediments to access? by hlavac · 2013-05-30 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  Problem with DRM is you have to show the content to legal users. If they can see it, they can copy it...
14. Re:impediments to access? by Xest · 2013-05-30 01:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
15. Re:impediments to access? by Bob9113 · 2013-05-30 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
16. Re:impediments to access? by Nemyst · 2013-05-30 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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).
17. Re:impediments to access? by MartinG · 2013-05-30 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  Just like it did for music?
  
  --
  -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
18. Re:impediments to access? by MartinG · 2013-05-30 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And they achieved this without DRM as a part of the standards.
  
  --
  -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
19. Re:impediments to access? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:impediments to access? by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/04/using-a-or-an-with-acronyms-and-abbreviations.html
  It depends on how you say MOOCS.
21. Re:impediments to access? by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-05-30 02:38 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
22. Re:impediments to access? by bzipitidoo · 2013-05-30 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
23. Re:impediments to access? by wagnerrp · 2013-05-30 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
24. Re:impediments to access? by FuzzNugget · 2013-05-30 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  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.
25. Re:impediments to access? by bzipitidoo · 2013-05-31 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Content moving to apps more of an impediment by blarkon · 2013-05-30 00:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-30 00:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
2. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-30 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 01:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by Thruen · 2013-05-30 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by rjforster · 2013-05-30 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-30 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by citizenr · 2013-05-30 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  >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.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
8. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by Warbothong · 2013-05-30 01:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
9. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by dbug78 · 2013-05-30 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  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?
10. Re:Content moving to apps more of an impediment by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-30 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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 Â£2 per week to watch an episode of series I follow, but I'd never spend Â£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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Scared of evolution? by thaylin · 2013-05-30 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Objection to the formal objection. by limaCAT76 · 2013-05-30 00:26 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by Idimmu+Xul · 2013-05-30 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
2. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-05-30 00:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
3. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-30 00:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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).
4. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-30 00:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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...
5. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sure there is, the decryption module can only output to some sort of content protected path. Otherwise recording its output would be trivial.
6. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by RaceProUK · 2013-05-30 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
8. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
9. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by Skapare · 2013-05-30 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
10. Re:Objection to the formal objection. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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".
Impediment to interoperability... by MachineShedFred · 2013-05-30 00:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
1. Re:Impediment to interoperability... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Impediment to interoperability... by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-30 00:50 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:Impediment to interoperability... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-30 00:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
4. Re:Impediment to interoperability... by BasilBrush · 2013-05-30 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Did that Happen!? by tuppe666 · 2013-05-30 00:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Optional!? by BasilBrush · 2013-05-30 01:21 · Score: 2

DRM is always optional. You don't have to buy the product with DRM.
Re:Go back to roots. by Cenan · 2013-05-30 01:29 · Score: 2

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.

--
... whatever ...
Re:It's a dilemma by magic+maverick+ · 2013-05-30 01:43 · Score: 2

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.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Re:Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-30 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Optional!? by Skapare · 2013-05-30 02:18 · Score: 2

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?

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What about the next industry? by macbeth66 · 2013-05-30 04:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
We can thank RMS for this by ciaran_o_riordan · 2013-05-30 04:40 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!