Slashdot Mirror
Reject DRM and You Risk Walling Off Parts of the Web, Says W3C Chief
An anonymous reader writes "Web technologies need to support DRM-protected media to reduce the risk of parts of the web being walled off, the chief executive of the web standards body W3C has told ZDNet. Dr Jeff Jaffe, CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium, says proposals to provide a hook for DRM-protected media within HTML, via Encrypted Media Extensions, are necessary to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy."
How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed. I'll be there's a copy on Pirate Bay. They seem to be under the impression that each individual pirate has to crack their weird schemes.
Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.
Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
... that suck because of DRM.
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off
Good, let them wall themselves off.
first
DRM doesn't work anyway. Pirates will bypass or remove the DRM or get the content some other way.
wall yourself off from most of the web.
removing anything off the internet is like trying to take the pee out of the pool
I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way. It's the movie studios that will be diminished and, likely, quickly outcompeted in the marketplace. I think it's time to start full-stop calling all the bluffs.
What now RMS?
we must wall off the web or else we'll wall off the web!
As long as it remains relatively unobtrusive. That was its problem in the early day, DRM was overly restrictive and made things a PITA for most ordinary users to use it. Apple figured out a way to do it where DRM was there, but was relatively unobtrusive. The studios et. al. learned. So long as it's easy to use and stays out of the way of what most people want to do, i.e. view content online easily, it will remain. When most people go to Netflix, so long as the movie they click on starts to play, they don't care if it has DRM or not.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Seriously DRM walls the open web? How about open web pages coded using HTM walling the web instead of Binary extensions which further wall the web into obscurity and encourage further violations of the principle of a universal accessible internet. I already hate flash and silverlight becaue they are properitary pieces of rubbish.
The W3C Need get this guy sorted out quickly, he is goning to ruin the open web we take for granted, Not Cool
If you're going full-DRM, at least give it to me on Linux, BSD, whatever. I don't care how you do it. I want to consume your crap on things that are not Windows or Mac! And you're making me angry by excluding me. And the Linux crowd is quite big these days you douchebags!
the chief executive of the web standards body W3C was paid off and pressured to say this by the movie/music organizations.
Is DRM not walling off parts of the web in the first place
They're threatening to take away our ability to torrent their movies?
Keep your restricted content off the web so we don't have to worry. I am sure people will rise to fill the gaps left behind with freely redistributable content. See, Problem Solved.
We have to build walls in our park, or else someone might build walls outside.
It seems you're ignoring the point on purpose here. The W3C isn't forcing anyone to use DRM. The W3C doesn't care if your DRM works.
The web is whatever "we" want it to be. Since there are companies using DRM on the web, it only makes sense to expand the specs to include that. It's just the next logical step towards finally killing Flash, Silverlight, etc.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
That statements makes no sense whatever since using i DRM itself is walling of the web.
Only the biggest browsers / projects will get access to whatever secrets are needed to impelement the DRM blackboxes, which means the web will no longer be free because you have to deal with the demands of this DRM nonsense to produce a relevant browser.
If this comes to pass I hope someone comes up with a new three letter abrivation to replace www and starts over again with sites aimed at sharing information and appropriate standards to achieving the goal.
????? ^^^^^
This isn't ascii art, I have no more to add :/
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
they're all behind drm now. so what's the deal? it's not like netflix has non drm content section. it's not like I can buy movies on physical media without some sort of drm on them. so what exactly would they be removing?
why do we need another plugin system, when we have one that works perfectly well for the drm? what's in it for w3c? cash? why would the studios be anymore interested in porting their drm schemes to exotic hardware if you provided them with a new plugin system.
that the organization has a CEO is a failure in the first place - fuck 'em.
oh we need them because ms discontinued silverlight and netflix needs a new plugin.. yeah, perfectly good reasoning, that we need this or netflix goes out of business out of spite. and one thing mr ceo these 3 companies.. haven't they ALREADY fucking implemented the thing? didn't I just read about it a few articles ago? what the fuck do we need the EME standard for if they already did it, they as companies are who is pushing for it and they as companies can do it regardless of what W3C does or doesn't do. only thing your stamp is buying you is couple of free lunches and some budget money while taking it up the ass.
why don't you make like an unicorn and finally tell us what HTML5 actually encompasses instead of latching on more every year so we could finally perhaps have html5 compatible browsers - not that it matters since it seems webkit and IE11(or whatever) are actually the defacto standard here.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Dr Jaffe misses the point.
Yes, opinions about whether DRM should be in HTML vary, and some people are very opposed to it, and have a perfect right to be. Reasonable people can disagree.
However, the proposal isn't DRM in HTML, it's worse. It's a way to call DRM plug-ins. It doesn't standardize the DRM, or the plug-ins, or the language the plug-ins are written in, or in any other way reflect the notion that HTML is a platform in and of itself, independent of the layer it runs over.
Indeed, it doesn't specify anything that cannot, today, be done via plug-ins.
As such, it's a stupid addition to web standards. It's pointless. It will not make studios suddenly excited about using the web, because if they're excited about using the web they're already using it with the existing plug-in framework. And it will not stop content providers who demand, rightly or wrongly, DRM, fleeing the web, because it doesn't add anything.
This proposal should not appear in the HTML standards. It should never have even been considered for inclusion.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
What he said is along similar lines of "If you don't use something other than Linux, you're probably not going to be able to watch Neflix." Or "If you don't let the TSA molest you, you won't be allowed on the flight."
The Chief here says basically that if you don't let them have their way, you won't be able to use their services. And I'm not sure I give a damn whether their services get used in the first place. That's time I could use to practice guitar instead, but honestly, I'm lazy enough and easily distracted enough that as long as things are easy to use, I'll still get home, sit online, and then wonder when I drag myself to bed, "where the hell did my evening go?"
So to those who would wall off portions of the internet, I say bring it. I need to finish learning the solo from Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" anyway.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
On the one hand, I can't watch netflix on linux, because the DRM isn't supported. Netflix is a part of the net that is already "walled off" to anyone who doesn't have an account, but it's walled off to me right now even though I subscribe. That sucks, and it would probably be avoided if Firefox and chrome support DRM as suggested.
OTOH
I can easily foresee a world where pretty much all the content is restricted. Not just movies. News. Weather. Slashdot. Everything will be DRM protected.That sucks worse.
So he is suggesting that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, and the dozens of other sites that utilize streaming movies as a revenue stream wouldn't exist if this DRM wasn't in place... wait.... I'm confused. How DO these companies make money without this DRM? Gosh.
He honestly thinks companies are going to cut off their revenue streams because a couple people might figure out a way to download and save their videos? Bullshit.
So many lies wrapped into such a small sentence. Is he a lobbiest too?
What is the advantage of this in a typical use case, for example a user streaming encrypted HTML5 media from tpb?
then they won't be part of the web.
scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy
Everthing is moving towards the web. The above scenario will never happen. Unless ofcourse DRM is included in the html spec, then it might.
Gee... if content is easy to access and affordable, then (most) people won't pirate it. People that still do would have done it no matter what - they're not your customers and you're NOT losing money by them doing so. (sure, it's not fair, yada yada)
But - when content is not easily and affordably available (say, because you "removed content from the web to protect it from piracy"), that's exactly what ENCOURAGES normal people to consider pirating in the first place. Those ARE their "customers" who would have paid a reasonable price for content that they can use in their preferred manner. They're shooting themselves in the foot, which is hardly surprising.
I don't see the idiocy stopping any time soon...
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Last I checked, the movie studios need our money more than we need their movies. Remove content from what is increasingly becoming the de facto way of purchasing entertainment, and they stand to lose far more revenue than is "lost" to illegal copies.
The music industry seems to have successfully had a clue rammed down their throat, at least with regards to selling DRM-free music. The movie industry is long over due.
I say call their bluff. Let's see who blinks first.
The problem with W3C's argument is it fails to recognize the enormous market value in making sure content is accessible to most number of eyeballs possible.
If megamediacorp wants to distribute content anywhere to any device any browser then they can't use technology not widely deployed or implemented. For example requiring third party plugins could provide missing functionality but they take a hit in knowing their content is not universally reachable.
If instead you just give in and widely implement whatever blackbox content feels will protect their content today then media companies no longer feel any pressure not to DRM/encrypt EVERYTHING and before you know it all content is DRM'd.
As a practical matter I never understood the DRM issue as the simple truth is that if you can decrypt it to view it you can certainly copy it. The only way for DRM to actually work is a fully trusted environment where the user is denied full access to their devices and physical hardware is tamper proof. Even if this were achivable nothing stops out of band re-recording of media. Not only is DRM evil but it is pointless... a total waste of time and resources as were the DVD and Blueray copy protection schemes. It can't work unless everyone is denied the right to own a general purpose computer.
I firmly reject DRM. Wall off whatever you like. You will become completely irrelevant and the rest of the Internet will be awesome. Do it. Please.
Let them remove anything and everything. It won't take long before they realize they need us more than we need them!
And while I'm at it, why doesn't the community at large "Just Say No."? Why do we allow ourselves to become the victims like this story suggests?
If you want to put something out there, then put it out there. But to modify software and protocols for the internet at large so that someone makes a buck that they didn't realize they might have made... well... I choose not to play.
Pursuant to your comments reported on 27 June 2013 on ZDNet.com:
You're fired, for cause, effective immediately. Please collect your personal belongings and vacate W3C premises no later than 17:00 local time today.
Regards,
The Web
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Even worse, as CDMs aren't really meant to be implemented as browser plugins, we'll end up with sites that work only in a specific browser, or in a specific OS, or even in a specific OS under certain circumstances.
i reject DRM by not buying products that restrict my usage - and quite frankly, after moving to a new residence with a distinct lack of broadband connectivity, actually feel much better *not* using the Internet as much (i can still do banking, email, etc., but i live in a digital wasteland where FIOS, DSL and cable are all around and nearby, but not available to my residence [and no, i'm not incarcerated])..
If businesses can't operate on the internet without DRM, then they don't deserve to operate on the internet.
We are not obligated to support business models that require us to sacrifice or ones who cannot stand on their own.
Well, there goes any credibility the "Chief" may have had. Maybe it's time to place someone in that position whose interests coincide with the web's interests, rather than the interests of a few businesspeople who can't make any money honestly and just want to nickle and dime us into oblivion with intrusive, draconian, ineffectual technology. We already have governments the world over abusing the Internet to their own spying ends, we don't need to let other abusive control freaks in as well.
In general terms, Digital Rights Management isn't necessarily a bad thing, and used properly can be very helpful. The problem is so many companies wielding DRM like a club, and bludgeoning their customers about the head and shoulders at every opportunity.
Look at iTunes, Steam, Netflix/Hulu ... all examples of DRM done right. They make it inconvenient to copy/pirate their content, while making it extremely convenient to use that content "properly." Watching movies, playing games and listing to music are simple and streamlined. Plus they're cheap cheap. For instance, if you just find a single TV show on Netflix, you can burn through a couple of seasons and completely justify the $8... and don't even get me started on Steam Sales. Summer sale is just around the corner.
The problem arises when preventing piracy steps on the toes of general usability. Sony's infamous rootkits, music piracy lawsuits, XBone in general (depending on how much MS has backtracked) or the current "Online Pass" era of video games, project $10 and the general hatred spewed towards the likes of Game-Stop**. All these things make it less convenient, less safe, and generally less fun to participate in the activities they're trying to protect.
**As an aside, I've always found an interesting dichotomy with Gamestop. Big publishers are doing everything they can to paint used games as the devil, killing business and clubbing baby seals or whatever ... but at the same time, almost every game released (especially from big publishers like EA) comes with special exclusive Gamestop pre-order bonuses.
This signature is false.
We could ALL reject DRM and allow those media distribution companies that insist on it to wither and die. I like my idea better. Lets all vote with our wallets.
People don't want DRM. DRM don't work.
DRM is bad for the internet. And DRM is bad for the open standards internet is built.
DRM is about reducing quality. And we need more quality, not less. DRM is user-hostile, developer-hostile, standards-hostile.
Its against everything the Internet represent.
A good example would be Netflix streaming. That service costs less than dinner at a fast food restaurant. It isn't worth my hard drive space to try and pirate it.
Way to completely fuck up your own point by blaming the wrong group of people.
It's Publishers that don't value the consumer. It's Publishers that want DRM on everything they own the copyright for. It's Publishers that want to enforce these draconian rulesets limiting your access to content across various media so they can force you to pay per platform rather than per piece of content.
Get it right.
It doesn't matter if DRM is built into the web or not. As long as there are no legal and fairly-priced methods to access media on the internet, someone will step in and provide it for free via torrent or whatever else can be used. By all means, build some DRM protection into HTML, and watch as every little entertainment publisher builds their own walled garden anyway.
I'd be fine with DRM if it didn't take away from the experience. Games that don't work, shows that aren't released until a year after they air, music that can only be played in certain devices and only as long as they can "check in" every once in a while, etc, are all examples of how to piss off your customers enough to turn them against you and your business model.
that this is the guy we are talking about: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/09/2159245/jeff-jaffe-named-ceo-of-w3c
This. Even with no DRM still not worth it.
Hell, they mail you disks you can copy all you like and no way could you get caught. Still very few people bother.
If these content companies don't Reject DRM, they risk walling themselves off from my wallet.
ProTip: The free market is driven by demand.
Uh, yeah.
This content is ALREADY walled off from the net.
The bricks of that wall are DRM!
They essentially set up a completely one-sided transaction here.
We pay them so they can tell us when and where and how many times we can view content we paid for.
And if we disagree? Fuck us! They have our money. We can just NOT have access to something we've paid for.
The whole piracy argument is maybe about 5% fact and 95% bullshit.
DRM is about increasing monetization of their content at the expense of open access. Piracy could drop to zero and they'd STILL claim losses to piracy.
Let these greedy money grubbers pull their content from the web!
All the smart content providers will stay, understanding that piracy and DRM is simply an expensive game of escalation where the only winners are the people selling their crappy DRM schemas. They'll continue to make money.
And all the rest of the jackasses who've pulled their content from the web can bitch about how their declining revenues are to be blamed on piracy, rather than their own stupid short-sightedness and greed.
In short, the old axiom proves true. If you don't want to lose control of something DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The DRM makers are the fools who did so, with their logically impossible goals.
Hollywood cannot survive without the web.
Grow a pair, call their fucking bluff already and tell them to get stuffed.
It's supposed to be walled off, dumbass. They want it walled off, and we want it walled off.
In order to have DRM you will have to force the browsers to obey DRM. A great example is how various parties are now trying to strong arm Firefox into obeying their rules about cookies.
Also DRM often requires that they firmly establish who you are. This would require that your identity be substantially tied to your browser. Then any website that is part of their scheme can then query this as a prerequisite to your using their site. This is the sort of MBA thinking that is just stupid.
Once it seems acceptable to force browsers to do something then all kinds of parties will try to force browsers to obey their rules. So I am not just worried about DRM. DRM is easy for anyone who wants to wall off their part of the web. They can just create a plug-in and do all the DRM they ever wanted to. What the various movie industry types have discovered is that nobody wants their crap plugins.
These industry types have blah blahed that piracy killed the DVD. I personally use Netflix and am happy with the click and watch interface. But the other day I put in a DVD for the first time in 5 years and it just made me angry. I had to sit through FBI warnings, I couldn't fast forward through their company logos and the menu didn't default on the movie (the reason I would put it in) but on the trailers (which their marketing department would want most). It is through DRM that they were able to force the manufacturers of DVDs to disable skipping the warnings and fast-forward when I wanted to.
Seeing that it was the World Wide Web Consortium that tried to choke us with XHTML as a method to "force" us to follow their rules I am asking the various browser development companies to band together and cut their ties with the World Wide Web Consortium. It is time for a new standards body; one that doesn't listen to any party outside of those who use browsers, develop browsers, and develop servers.
A very simple litmus test for the public's desire for DRM is that they will flock to a DRM plug-in in droves to the point where it is just stupid not to include it with the browsers. If few want it then by what right do they think they can force us to take it?
Also, perhaps, if we reject DRM, the parts of the web we wall off are exactly the ones we should.
Music will be on our side of the wall; DRM is dead there. Seems to me that's a trend worth encouraging.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://www.w3.org/People/Jeff/ I'm emailing him to tell him that DRM content is walled off from the web. DRM is not open content and has no place on the web. Let content providers who do not adapt die off. Doesn't matter if they are large movie studios or not.
"DRM-protected media within HTML ... [is] necessary to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy."
He makes it sound like that's a bad thing.
I have no problem with the studios removing their films from web distribution. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads requiring them to publish anything on the web. They're free to require their customers to install a proprietary media player to play movies over the Internet.
Let the studios threaten to take their movies and go home. They're bluffing. That will only hurt the studios, not the viewers. The studios have no leverage here.
The W3C doesn't need a single thing from the studios. There's no problem that needs to be solved there -- there's just a whiny crybaby who needs to be ignored. The fact that Jaffe is doing the studio's bidding strongly suggests that he's in their pocket. He should be presumed corrupt.
Hey, I support standardization of DRM. Then if it's broken once, you break it everywhere!
How did the movie studios get their drone hired as the CEO of WC3? Fire that clown now.
If you reject DRM, you "risk" walling off parts of the Web.
If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.
"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...you are drunk!
It will be hacked anyway and that will teach them.
You're wrong, Mr. Jaffe. Any website using DRM is "walled off" by design. Adding Encrypted Media Extensions to HTML5 doesn't change that, although it does allow its proponents to falsely claim that, as part of the standard, it opens up protected content to HTML5-compliant browsers instead of being tied to proprietary platforms like Flash and Silverlight.
Standard or not, encrypted HTML5 video will only run on platforms that support whatever proprietary DRM scheme the content producers have chosen. Instead of needing something like Flash or Silverlight, "DRM Flavor X" will be required for content to be decrypted. Since DRM schemes are only effective when users cannot alter them, there will never be such a thing as Open Source DRM. Open Source browsers that wish to be compatible with "DRM Flavor X" will therefore have to either incorporate proprietary code (in object form rather than source code) or rely on proprietary DRM hardware to handle decryption and display. Either way, it's "walled off" and proprietary.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
As such, it's a stupid addition to web standards. It's pointless.
DRMs are pointless. Their addition to anything can only be pointless.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
So we lose "parts of the web" that don't want to be shared (Hollywood). Big deal. No tears here.
And recent history at that - January 18, 2012 to be precise.
Maybe W3C needs a new CEO.
or not at all. if "big time Hollywood" won't come to the market, the market will go to the folks who want to serve it.
maybe it's time to tell them to go to freakin' hell in a flamebucket and let somebody else start producing and distributing content. we need a new model anyway, Steven Spielberg this month told a big ol' Hollywood gathering that their business is kaput anyway... you can't grind out a potboiler for under $100 million, and increasingly films are not making their production money back. of course, Hollywood accounting has always read that tale to the artists who had profit participation.
screw DRM, in all its forms, over Da ISH, and let's see what we get for production values. you can do a passable edit job with the free software on any new computer in the past 5 years. what you don't get for free are "10 passes through the optical printer" effects.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
God has spoken through Moryath, and we must break the rules.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
In January 2013, Netflix reported they had added 2 million U.S. customers during the 4th quarter of 2012 with a total of 27.1 million U.S. streaming customers, and 29.4 million total streaming customers. In addition, revenue was up 8% to $945 million for the same period.
As of mid-March 2013, Netflix had 33 million subscribers. That number increased to 36.3 million subscribers (29.2 million in U.S.) in April 2013.
Netflix
There are about 86 million broadband subscribers in the US. List of countries by number of broadband Internet subscriptions
We are at the point where fifty percent of all broadband subscribers are ---- or very soon will be --- subscribers to one or more content protected media services. Services which are branching out into original production and a broader range of services.
iTunes becomes iRadio and iRadio becomes iVideo and iVideo becomes iGames, iBook, iNews and so on.
That can happen within the walled gardens of the app and app store or it can happen within the context of the more open and accessible web browser.
But it can't be stopped.
We have a deal. You keep DRM from infesting the web and the studios can refuse to put their movies on. The public wins, the studios think they win and the internet avoids becoming a private corporate fiefdom. Anyone else up for accepting this deal?
Web technologies need to support DRM-protected media to reduce the risk of parts of the web being walled off ...
Let the inmates build the walls of their own asylum, and let the rest of us can thrive in openness.
... DRM-protected media within HTML, via Encrypted Media Extensions, are necessary to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy.
They can certainly (try) removing them from the web, but there is no way to remove them from the Internet at large. I'd hope the chief of the W3C would be technologically clueful enough to know that.
I really hope we can 'wall off' the DRMized parts of the web. That way it will be easier to identify and avoid the nonsense.
Will get rather lonely over there.
This is why movie studios aren't concerned about "a single file getting out there", since they know the vast majority of people don't want to bother with finding movies the hard way.
Then why would they bother with DRM in the first place?
Read this man's bio and ask yourself if this is the sort of man who would put the best interest of common people above that of select corporations and government's needs . http://www.w3.org/People/Jeff/
Yeah, that's a known fact about the 'net. It tends to route around broken parts of the net.
Since DRM is breaking open access, that's a feature.
This is not a problem for the net, it is a problem for those who want to be both seen and not seen at the same time.
Don't give 'em DRM, and let them stew in their own juice behind a paywall.
After all, that's worked out so well for the Newspapers....
Generally speaking, 'pirated' media is far more convenient. You can use it anywhere without limitations. It's easy, and it's only going to get easier.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
i have not seen such logical fallacy since Michelle Bachman
to remove these people from the internet. IMAGINE No DRM = NO Movie Studios = No lobbying for crazy copyright law that have stagnated the intertnet for 10 years. Sign me the fuck up for the NO wagon!!!!!!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If we reject DRM, studios cannot push their self proclaimed "blockbusters" loaded with ads for movies we don't give half a shit about down our throats?
Just so I know, are you trying to argue for or against DRM?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd rather wall off parts of the web that don't care about what consumer want, than taint standards (and software) we use every day with DRM.
So be it.
I don't mind movies being "removed" from the web. My internet hasn't ever been about entertainment industry.
Let's have them build their own crappy internet. Our technology doesn't have to support their stupid ideas.
Internet is a huge library, not a fucking shopping mall, move them shops elsewhere. Also put facebook and the likes there.
The internet was more useful when there were 1000 times less people using it, the rest of the newcomers are just dirt that needs to be scrubbed if they won't even understand the very own nature of the tool they are constantly pulling backwards.
Why is Dr Jeff Jaffe, CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium shilling for the DRM people?
The DRM boat has sailed. Slashdot has been screaming at these dinosaurs to lose the vinyl LP mindset and embrace the future for seems like 10 years.
iTunes and Netflix are already here. The viable new business models for content distribution is here.
It generates lots of profit, and protect rights well enough.
iTunes Initial release January 9, 2001; 12 years ago
Last week, I went to a theatre it was packed!
That show with Kevin Spacey, House of Cards indicates that not only is the new model here and profitable, but that netflix and internet TV companies are generating enough cashflow to experiment with new forms of distribution. This will only increase their lead over the DRM dinosaurs, still waiting to get out of the gate, or wallowing in denial.
And as a techie, keep that half baked, bug ridden, back doored, NSA surveillance feed, root kit, trojan crap off my boxes.
Some of us run business apps through our browsers.
Some of us have to support hundreds of idiot users, Another DRM or plugin or add on is just one more thing to go wrong, one more thing to support, one more line item on the budget my IT department will be submitting to upper management.
Because sure as the sun, W3C, Sony, Paramount and Disney are not going to have support lines to call.
And the Obama administration will give blanket immunity from their buggy plugin in causing loss due to bugs or security breaches.
DRM: The boat has sailed. Even if they got the whole wishlist, the new wave of internet TV companies is too far ahead for the Vinyl Record People to catch up.
Like Wonko the Sane, they'll be self assured of their rightness, but they'll wither away alone.
And not allowing despotic regimes to buy guns off you can risk blocking off revenue sources for the defense industry.
However, this isn't the fault of rejecting DRM walling those off, it's those wanting to wall themselves off from the internet.
I say "Go ahead, wall yourself off from the internet. What you wan't IS NOT the internet, that was supposed to be for sharing information and default 'GO AHEAD!', not leasing it out and defaulting to 'DO NOT WANT'"
I am 100% willing and able to forego anything requiring DRM on the web or anywhere else. Fuck DRM.
And they won't be writing a player for your Ubuntu box either. Because they'd have to write a kernel driver blob that is closed source and will only work on certain very limited versions of Linux. And they'd have to write several to cover Linux, one to cover windows and one to cover Android, and one to cover....
Each copy of which may be explotable and will cost to write and maintain.
With DRM "in" the HTML standard, you will still not get Netflix. Because the reason why you aren't getting it is because the Linux kernel is open to you, so you can break any encryption they put on a userspace program.
You don't own the seat, the room, the projector or the building of the theatre. You don't even pay the bills for that place.
They DO want you to buy the computer, pay for the internet connection, keep the system up to date, buy their product. AND they want the same control over YOUR stuff as they have over THEIR seats.
So meatspace analogy time: you're a freeloader who wants everyone else to just let you have control of their things so you can check to see they're not doing something naughty.
The market will ultimately guide the publishers to the correct decision (which is what ultimately ends up making them more money) - it just might take some time, undoubtedly destroy some publishers and make some DRM shills rich - but we'll get there in the end.
Personally, I've got no issue at all with DRM per-se, but that's when the benefits to me outweigh the impact. I'm a happy subscriber to Spotify and Netflix, and I'm reasonably sure those services would never have happened if it was just a library of mp3 or mkv files.
Let them hide their content, wait for them to go out of business, and let the others learn from their example.
Then let there be walls! DRM be damned.
You want HTML to include a standard set of hooks by which a remote party can access parts of my computer that I myself can't control, so that they can remotely restrict access to, or even delete, content on my computer? Gee. What could possibly go wrong.
Wow, that would be totally unprecedented (hardly).
The really stupid thing is that they are not even proposing standardising DRM, they are proposing an API to enumerate proprietry DRM plugins:
"This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems."
So, without this we have sites that use propriety DRM plugins that can't be used by any browser / OS combination that they didn't target.
And with this we will have sites that use propriety DRM plugins that can't be used by any browser / OS combination that they didn't target.
Only, then they will feel like it is OK to do that because it's in the standard, so adding this will only encourage walling off more of the web, not less.
"We have to destroy the web in order to save it".
Let them go. I won't be sad.
Yes. We risk ''walling off'' Sony, Disney and the rest... :-)
Wow. A web the way I liked it, before big-media and commercial presence sought to replicate the AOL experience.
At its peak, AOL's membership was over 30 million members worldwide, most of whom accessed the AOL service through the AOL software suite. AOL was ranked fourth (behind the Web, email, and graphic user interfaces) in a 2007 USA Today retrospective on the 25 events that shaped the first 25 years of the Internet and was named to the ".com 25" by a panel of Silicon Valley influencers on the occasion of the same anniversary.
AOL
Netflix has 30 million subscribers in the US.
There are 86 million broadband subscribers in the US. 1 in 3 subscribes to Netflix.
The geek lives for day when the Internet is once again his private playground.
It is never going to happen.
Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but movie studios don't put movies on the web, pirates do. And they're going to ignore your DRM scheme regardless.
When will movie studios realize that the average person pays for their movies and songs and books? There will always be a few bad apples in society, but I feel like those pushing DRM are exploiting the internet paranoia of the studios in an effort to deprive them of their hard earned cash. While it's hard to be sympathetic to the studios, the proverb that a fool and his money are soon parted definitely applies here.
If the studios had a clue, they'd kick the DRM folks to the curb, and instead focus on making movies worth buying. Yes, there will always be piracy, and no, it's not the end of the industry. Get over it.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
DRM is damage. Those parts of "the web" which demand it are damaged. Route around them.
DRM is a wall. Accepting it lays just another brick.
Go ahead and accept DRM. Just remember, four walls builds a cell. Make your bed and lie in it.
Compare with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
Also remember DHCP implemented at the cost of the consumer now means a 3 second delay EVERY TIME switching sources.
The content industry should bear the cost of their protection themselves and not offload it to the consumer.
http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
DRM is the wall, granpa.
...you risk walling off some people!
What will this solve? The movie studios will have to write plugins to every available browser where they want to show their content. This will probably mean that the only viable platforms will be win + ios and android, Both Ios and android they are already making apps for, why can't they just make a drm-filled program for windows?
They can never control the entire chain if they don't want to dole out the money to build up an entire infrastructure, so why bother? I think we see this time and time again publishers don't want to do it themselves, they always want to make others do their dirty work.
Movie execs are capitalists. They'll make whatever people will open up their wallets for.
Which would be good, except that they have no idea what people will pay to watch.
So being mindful of the bottom line, they chose to keep pumping out movies they perceive as carrying lesser risk of failure, i.e. remakesof old previously successful movies (eg Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), sequel after sequel of tired franchises (Scary Movie 2 anyone?), and any movie with excessive violence, explosions, gore, profanity or sex, preferably all of the above.
Which is not to say such movies cannot be fun, mindless entertainment on occasion but watching this steady unending stream of clone movies is the equivalent of living on a diet of popcorn and soda exclusively.
Even at the lowest point of Stalinist regime, under extreme censorship, and with a constant risk of being ratted out, Russians still managed to exchange politically-sensitive information via samizdat [wikipedia.org], by reprinting works on typewriters.
I don't want to ruin your optimism, but samizdat did not influence Soviet politics at all. None of those dissidents started a political career, even after the USSR has collapsed.
While we can linger in our little digital darknets, the general population will be brought back under the control of elites. This process is happening worldwide.
It'd be worth my hard drive space because even in London I don't have a good enough internet connection to reliably stream and my walls seem to absorb wifi worse than any others I've seen.
If they just jave me a download link to an unencumbered avi/mp4/mkv/ogm i'd very very very happily pay. They won't sell me movies for money so they don't get my money. On the other hand I do pay Amazon for music.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Internet is a huge place, much, much larger than The Web.
There is room for proprietary protocols and applications that only work with the servers/data of their providers. Oh wait, they all failed in the past.
So you try to latch your proprietary crap on to the medium that succeeded because of its free and open nature. Yeah, that's going to work.
In days past, people like the Firefox developers would make a stand and refuse to support this crap, standard or not. These days, sadly, I'm not so sure.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It appears that others in the W3C mailing lists have in fact objected to the implementation of DRM in HTML5.
They were instead shunted off to 'more appropriate forums' to discuss their objections.
There are literally hundreds of emails there to plow through. Although there are many strong objections raised by different parties, the one who really seems to be pushing DRM is Netflix.
Even the EFF have formally objected to the DRM scheme.
It also appears that the CEO of W3C is the one who made the decision.
The current W3C CEO is Dr. Jeffrey Jaffe.
So in a nutshell, if you're wondering who to blame for EME in HTML5, thats the story.
Now, the price of the content will go down due to competition and may be some type of extended financial crisis where the 99% gets more squeezed. There is no need to pay $5 or more for any content - book/TV show/Movie tickets and so on.
Here is the problem with your assumption. You assume that with an absence of or reduction in piracy rates, the content owners will be compelled to reduce the price of their content. Why would they do that?
In terms of competition, the content owners are already competing among themselves today. This has not resulted in any visible reduction in prices. Even assuming piracy is entirely wiped out, it will have no net effect on the degree of competition the contents owners face. The same rivals they face today will still be there tomorrow.
You should also know that movie ticket prices have never been reduced since 1948. This also holds true even for the period before the internet was born or piracy became widespread.
I want content walled off so I don't have to see it. If all pop culture entertainment could be walled off, I would be happy.
Standards are far more likely to be implemented for Linux than proprietary schemes.
Each individual content decryption module is not a standard; it's a trade secret. I see nothing to guarantee that a given content decryption module will be made available for all platforms that access the Web.
What do you think about how images are rendered on screen? It's not done in HTML, the browser doesn't do it directly - it calls a library provided by the host OS. That library varies by OS. Same is true for the video tag. Here the only difference is which library is called. With DRM it would be "SecureVideoDecoder" instead of "VideoDecoder".
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I don't give a crap because it's not even slightly comparable. JPEG is not a proprietary format, it's documented, it's a defacto standard, and it's easy for web browser creators to incorporate functionality to implement it (whether using libpr0n or otherwise) into their own browsers, which they do.
It is not even in the same ballpark as unknown proprietary plug-ins that depend upon APIs that are not standardized.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You need walls for digital parkour to be any funâ¦
DRM IS walling off. And any and all DRM were cracked in the end, so the film studios are wasting their time. If they gonna take film off the net, there will be some guys, who put them back, just go to the store, buy a DVD/BD, copy, convert, upload, distribute the links/torrent files and the film is again on the net. They are fighting a lost battle and only being a pain in the costumers asses.
What I find hilarious about the whole concept of DRM is this:
A company can hire a team of coders, we'll say a moderately large one, to come up with a DRM scheme. They succeed, the company uses the DRM on a new product.
A million hackers look at the product with the brand new DRM and go,"Oooo! Challenge!" and proceed to defeat said DRM in a matter if days, if not faster.
There are two webs forming, inside the same medium. Ever noticed, that most free sites like blogs do not link to news-sites with paywalls? The web-graph will have fewer and fewer connections between the two big components. One side with paywalls and DRM, one side with free sites like blogs, podcasts, etc.
now there is closed source software like flash, silverlight to play DRM-content. ...
Then there is an open API for closed components.
Better, right? Think again
Now there is moonlight and even an official flash player for linux.
Then every site will have its own EME-module. Some may provide modules for linux, but others will not.
The other pages are now linux supported. Then they will not be supported anymore. So EME does not contribute to open standards, but forces every company to make its own proprietary solution.
Time for this idiot to step down.
ok. all we need to do is not even bother with sites with DRM. Also we should just use a free and open browser. enough of this shit.
Don't use it and it will die. Just like the locked down operating systems and hardware. If hardware is going to be locked down and I can't run my OS of choice, I will buy hardware from China.
I'm done with this shit.
Even if this were achivable nothing stops out of band re-recording of media.
How do you "out of band re-record" a video game?
"to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy."
This makes no sense! So, if you add DRM to HTML5 the movie studios will be happy to put movies on the web? Or they won't take down movies that are already on the web in pirated form? Or somehow legal places that are already using drm-based solutions without DRM in HTML5 will do... what?
All DRM in HTML5 does is encourage every site in existence to use it. Everyone who truly needs to use DRM does already without integrating it into HTML5. There are just no advantages to anyone. More sites will begin using DRM when they don't need to and it won't improve any sites that need to use it.
Parts will be walled off no matter what. Standardize DRM and you buttress those walls.
Wall it off. Who cares Hollywood has not produced anything worthwhile since I don't know when.
And if you do not pay a license fee to the saintly rights holders for each performance, you're worse than Hitler. Good Day, Sir!