Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Foundation Challenges Tim Berners-Lee On DRM (defectivebydesign.org)
Slashdot reader Atticus Rex writes: On Monday, W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) director Tim Berners-Lee released a post defending his decision to allow Netflix, Microsoft, Apple and Google to enshrine DRM in Web standards, arguing that blocking it would be pointless. Zak Rogoff, FSF campaigns manager, writes in the response:
"As Director of the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), Berners-Lee has the ability to block [the DRM proposal] from ratification as an official Web standard... Of course, a refusal to ratify could not immediately stop the use of DRM, but it could meaningfully weaken the position of DRM in the court of public opinion, and put EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google on notice that a very prominent figure was willing to stand up to them on behalf of users. Changes in society's technological infrastructure require political movements, not just technological arguments, and political movements benefit greatly from the support of prominent figures."
Berners-Lee takes the position that "The web has to be universal, to function at all. It has to be capable of holding crazy ideas of the moment, but also the well polished ideas of the century. It must be able to handle any language and culture. It must be able to include information of all types, and media of many genres. Included in that universality is that it must be able to support free stuff and for-pay stuff, as they are all part of this world.
"This means that it is good for the web to be able to include movies, and so for that, it is better for HTML5 to have EME than to not have it."
"As Director of the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), Berners-Lee has the ability to block [the DRM proposal] from ratification as an official Web standard... Of course, a refusal to ratify could not immediately stop the use of DRM, but it could meaningfully weaken the position of DRM in the court of public opinion, and put EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google on notice that a very prominent figure was willing to stand up to them on behalf of users. Changes in society's technological infrastructure require political movements, not just technological arguments, and political movements benefit greatly from the support of prominent figures."
Berners-Lee takes the position that "The web has to be universal, to function at all. It has to be capable of holding crazy ideas of the moment, but also the well polished ideas of the century. It must be able to handle any language and culture. It must be able to include information of all types, and media of many genres. Included in that universality is that it must be able to support free stuff and for-pay stuff, as they are all part of this world.
"This means that it is good for the web to be able to include movies, and so for that, it is better for HTML5 to have EME than to not have it."
"The web has to be universal, to function at all. "
As soon as you introduce selective DRM for selected platforms and devices, it's not universal anymore.
"but also the well polished ideas of the century."
Something with DRM is always never an idea of the century cause it will never last a century before it's not possible to consume that idea anymore: it is locked away with DRM, illegal to decrypt.
Does anyone seriously think Netflix could ever operate without DRM? No DRM, no Netflix or services like it.
If they don't like people thinking it's normal for the cool content to be handcuffed by EME, shouldn't they be producing better content and sending it out unshackled?
I know this opinion will probably be unpopular here on Slashdot, but 20 years of developing web standards and web technologies tells me Berners-Lee is right on this one, from a standards perspective. Our choice, realistically, for some content is between standardized, compatible, cross-platform DRM, or non-standard, incompatible DRM that requires Internet Explorer on Windows with Java or Flash. This isn't about what we think people *should* do, it's about what they *actually* do.
From the 1990s through to today, some publishers have found a need for DRM of one form or another, and over and over again they've asked me to help deploy it. I explain that DRM generally doesn't work and can't work. They then buy some DRM solution based on ActiveX, or Flash, or Java, or whatever is popular at the moment, and I can't see their content on my Linux desktop. The story repeats over and over. How many years could Linux users not access Netflix?
The fact is, companies will implement DRM. Lacking a standard way to do it, most require Flash (which is a security nightmare), Sony installs a rootkit on customers' computers. Most companies *shouldn't* use DRM, perhaps, but they do. A few companies have a strong case of why DRM actually makes sense for their content.
There is no debate about this point - we KNOW companies will deploy DRM without a standard, because the DO. Lack of a standard for web DRM has never stopped them from hacking together really annoying DRM.
Do we prefer a standardized, cross-platform approach developed with input from users or do we prefer the Sony rootkit approach? Those are the realistic options we can actually choose from. The standards bodies can't prevent DRM, they can only offer a reasonable way of doing it or leave publishers to implement it in all kinds of unreasonable ways.
Exactly. If we want more Flashes and more Silverlights, by all means, fight against DRM in the browser. I, for one, do not. I will choose the lesser evil. We're going to need it until we "fix" copyright law, which could take literally forever.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the browser doesn't supply it, they'll use a plugin that does, e.g. Flash or Silverlight. So I don't really see the argument for stopping DRM, or standardizing the form that it takes.
+1
Just because there's a standard doesn't mean it has to be used. DRM-free content will survive on its own merit, just as paid-for DRM content will survive on its own value. I would much rather have the opportunity for a consistent standards-based DRM implementation than the plethora of security-imploding crap we have today.
Anyone who thought the fight to keep DRM standards out of the W3C was going to be their ticket to not having to popularize content with their dollars was always a fool. The fight is against copyright extensions and for copyright reform. Operational standards are always in everyone's best interests.
I feel truly sorry for TBL on the political fallout from this, but it's absolutely the correct decision.
Thank you! I believe you hit the nail on the head, as has Sir Tim. Unfortunate, but not surprising, that FSF took the narrow and unproductive view.
> As soon as you introduce selective DRM for selected platforms and devices, it's not universal anymore.
"Selected platforms and devices" is what we get without a standard. We know that because we've tried that for 25 years. How many years could Linux users not access Netflix. When I first got involved with the IETF (web standards group), ActiveX was the popular way to implement DRM. Meaning you could only see the content using Internet Explorer on Windows. Talk about "selected platforms"! Later DRM on the web commonly used Java for a few years, then Flash. Flash-based DRM lasted for many years, and there are still many sites that require the security nightmare known as Flash because that's how they do their DRM.
Note in the above paragraph I never used the word "should". This isn't about what publishers "should" do, or what we'd like them to do. It's about what they actually do. What they actually do is require Flash in the best case DRM, and implement the Sony rootkit in other cases. Of course there are almost as many different ways of doing DRM as there are publishers using it - there is no standard.
On the other hand, we've long had standards for video and images such as mpeg and jpeg. Are those limited to "selected platforms and devices"? No, the entire point of standardization is that a standard can be implemented on any platform and device.
I've personally made the case against DRM to probably 100 of my customers (qho arw publishers) yet so many of them decide to go ahead and use DRM. About half choose a DRM solution that means I can't see their content on my device. Would a rather they each come up with their own incompatible, annoying DRM that doesn't let me view the content, or would I rather they use a compatible, cross-platform standard that anyone can view, developed with input from users? Given the options we actually have, I'd rather be involved in developing a usable standard than have another generation of Flash-based sites and Sony rootkits.
EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google
Hey look, all the major browser makers, except one. Users still have a choice in Firefox.
Except that Youtube-owner Google spent hundreds of millions to obtain considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla). And then (what a coincidence!) Mozilla gave in on DRM, and seems perpetually bent on making dozens of other perplexing decisions that users can't stand, and seem outright designed to cost it market share.
Be assured that the other big (if not the main) reason they want DRM is to thwart adblock for videos. If they can compromise your browser/vidplayer to the degree that they've prevented you from even reading the content stream, then they've necessarily also prevented you from altering it.
But as you say, DRM doesn't and can't work. Why the fuck should we bow down to a party that will ultimately lose? There are other considerations, and if they have to go out of their way to use DRM, it will become a more costly approach. Make them pay for buggy, substandard solutions and they'll either get it together or be eaten alive by pirates providing a better experience.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
>If we want more Flashes and more Silverlights, by all means, fight against DRM in the browser.
And that is what we do. It's not like raping and pillaging is supposed to be easy either.
Where is this cross-platform? Nobody has a EME implementation for ARM, MIPS, PowerPC, SPARC, ... or on the OS side for OS/2, BeOS, Haiku, ... nor are there any plans to add them.
It will mean the beginning of the Intel-only web.
Better to collaborate with the nazis, then being gassed along with the people you try to defend.
Bullshit!
"There will be DRM anyway, so we implement it for them" is no excuse for anything.
These DRM solutions are all Intel-only and will stay so for the foreseable future (maybe ARM if we get lucky).
Do not let the web become Intel-only!
What '20 years of dictating web standards' tells me is that TBL has had his shot at it, and it's time for somebody else to get a chance.
But what if I want Flashes and Silverlights to only be installed on other people's equipment who choose to install it?
What if I don't want a Flash and a Silverlight embedded into each and every browser that it's possible for me to use?
I know this opinion will probably be unpopular here on Slashdot, but 20 years of engineering execution standards and execution technology tells me Berners-Lee is right on this one, from a standards perspective. Our choice, realistically, for some executions is between standardized, compatible, execution methods, or non-standard, incompatible executions that require homemade poisons, farming pesticides, or crazy use of electricity in a chair. This isn't about what we think states *should* do, it's about what states *actually* do.
From the 1990s through to today, some states have found a need for executions of one form or another, and over and over again they've asked me to help deploy them. I explain that an execution deterrent generally doesn't work and can't work. They then buy some execution solution based on chlorine, or napalm, or used coffee acid, or whatever is popular at the moment, and I can't have them use my clunky but workable standard executables. The story repeats over and over. How many years could execution users not have access to painfree and cheap standard executables?
The fact is, states will execute people. Lacking a standard way to do it, most states require napalm (which is a cleanup nightmare), Oklahoma injects pesticides into criminals' veins. Most states *shouldn't* use executions, perhaps, but they do. A few states have a strong case of why execution actually makes sense for their criminals.
There is no debate about this point - we KNOW states will execute people without a standard, because the DO. Lack of a standard for execution has never stopped them from hacking up really annoying executions.
Do we prefer a standardized, cross-state approach developed with input from "users" or do we prefer the Oklahoma pesticide approach? Those are the realistic options we can actually choose from. The standards bodies can't prevent executions, they can only offer a reasonable way of doing it or leave states to implement it in all kinds of unreasonable ways.
What if I don't want a Flash and a Silverlight embedded into each and every browser that it's possible for me to use?
It's usually possible to take such things out, or at least block them. What's the problem?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have never seen a DRM protection that actually works, but it would be nice to have at least a standard for non-working DRM. // Please don't delete this line.
In the end it all boils down to a single "if()" in the browser source code, with a comment:
As an example, see the do-not-print and do-not-copy-paste bits in the PDF "standard".
I've always thought it better to get a DRM standard in. But i'm anti DRM. Why?
Because we make the studios choose a DRM, put it in everything.. then we break it later. Tada, everything can be easily un-DRMed, and the lawyers can point at licensees and say "DRM is in the spec, we did our part"
and put EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google on notice that a very prominent figure was willing to stand up to them on behalf of users
I question whether this position is truly "standing up on behalf of users".
Most users have governments which pass copyright laws predicated on the value of securing, for authors for limited times, exclusive right to profit from their works as a means of encouraging the creation of said works, the volume of which as a benefit for The People.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
> Nobody has a EME implementation for ARM, MIPS ...
It will mean the beginning of the Intel-only web.
That is factually incorrect. See Chromium for one open source example. EME can call any CDM, only one is required, called Clear Key. Clear Key is basically "the video is encrypted with AES, prompt the user to copy-paste the key". Clear Key (and therefore EME) can be implemented in nothing more than (clever) Javascript, so any platform that can run Javascript can run EME.
Of course it isn't *normally* implemented in Javascript, but it can be.
Yeah the web has been a complete failure under W3C and IETF. I'd never use the web, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
When you can write code at the kernel level you really stop caring about such stupid things....
Lets see.... X11 Composite extension to snag the video and save it to a file unencrypted. Maybe 1 or 2 days of coding.
Hack the DRI interface at the kernel to dump the framebuffer into a memory backed buffer with a kernel thread writing to disk..... Maybe a week or two...
Run the browser over a professional grade opengl X11 server such as exceed and capture the network stream....
Use a projector in a big room then film the wall just like people do in theaters.
Broadcast the current screen as a live stream and park it on a series playing episodes in order....
Write an LD_PRELOAD hack to override the system C and C++ libraries before the browser loads, or just modify the linker directly to lie. Then intercept whatever call they use and dump it whilst lying to the application about the result of certain operations (such as equality checks with operator overloading).
Use a VM and run the video full screen whilst the host OS is capturing video and audio. (Hack the kernel in the VM to lie about being a VM when asked about hardware)
Shall I keep going? Implement your fucking DRM. I challenge you!
If we don't want Flash and Silverlight we should be for having something comparable right inside the browser?
Flash doesn't get better by being an integral part of the browser, it still is not possible for the users to fix, it still is not available on any but the top-3 platforms and top-1 CPU architecture, it still is not possible for security researchers to independently audit etc. etc.
It's like Flash, just a tiny but less obnoxious but instead with 100% market penetration and thus unlike Flash it will be everywhere and we will never get rid of it. Not a good deal.
If we don't want Flash and Silverlight we should be for having something comparable right inside the browser?
We already effectively do have all the parts of flash right in the browser already except for the DRM. But then since we need to add something else to get the DRM, we end up getting all of those things all over again in some other form and adding a lot of unnecessary attack surface.
It's not like you won't be able to get an OSS build which doesn't have the DRM.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, but if the only protection is clever javascript, there will be a script to rip the content in -3 seconds, making the DRM pointless.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The studios approve two types of devices if you wish to stream their coopyrighted content. One approval is for a hardware device - a phone, tablet, dedicated player (e.g. Roku), Blu-ray player, etc. You submit a sample of this hardware, they go over it and OK it, and authorize you to stream to it. This is why the iPhones got Netflix before Android phones. Netflix had to submit just a few iPhone models for approval, so that happened pretty quickly. They had to submit hundreds of Android phone models for approval, so that took some time.
The second type of approval is for software players. If you want to stream to a software player running on a general purpose computing device, Hollywood has much more stringent requirements. Their fear is that you'll run another program along-side the streaming video that peeks into the memory containing the decrypted stream, and save stream to disk thus giving you a DRM-free digital copy of the movie. Their "solution" is that the DRM and video decode process has to happen inside an encrypted virtual machine, which then sends each frame directly to the display device. They don't want a native Windows or OS X or Liinux binary which does this because someone could theoretically modify the binary before running to weaken or pierce the encrypted VM. That's why the players are coded in Flash or Silverlight (theoretically you could modify those as well, but it's a lot harder since a new copy of the player is sent when you begin streaming the movie).
This insanity is also why playing streamed movies on PC requires much heftier hardware than mobile devices. Because the entire decode process has to happen inside the encrypted VM, you can't take advantage of dedicated video decode hardware built into every GPU since the late 1990s. The entire thing has to be done in software (moreover, software running in a VM). It's extremely CPU-intensive. That's why until recently you needed an i3 or better (Pentium or Atom wasn't enough) to stream 1080p movies from Netflix, Hulu, etc, while your phone with a low-end ARM processor could stream the same 1080p movie with no problems. Because the phone was approved as a hardware device, it's allowed to use dedicated video decoding hardware.
What you write is utter nonsense.
Clear Key will not work on ANY site, so its existence is irrelevant.
EVERYONE will require an Intel-only CDM. Ok, so I wrote EME when I should have written CDM.
It's not about what CAN be, they COULD implement widevine CDM for RiscV on Haiku tomorrow, proving me wrong.
They COULD stop using DRM, making this irrelevant.
The point is about what WILL happen (and I am willing to bet this is a WILL, not a MIGHT, and that a larger and larger part of the web will be behind DRM that will not be available except on very few architectures and OS).
Better to only have to work around one DRM implementation than a bunch of different ones, cause you know they are going to happen regardless.
CSS anyone?
> if the only protection is clever javascript
The protection isn't in the Javascript. The protection is that the content is encrypted with AES. Only a user with the key can decrypt the content. The Javascript is "clever" only in that it manipulates html tags that the browser doesn't natively understand, etc.
> there will be a script to rip the content in -3 seconds,
Absolutely. EME doesn't provide any protection whatsoever against an authorized user ripping the content. That's outside the scope of EME. The one decryption that option that's required to be supported, Clear Key (simple, unadorned aes) *only* ensures the content is available only to authorized users (who have the key). It has no protection against ripping or anything else done by authorized users.
> making the DRM pointless.
Right, there is no DRM in EME, or required by EME. EME is a small set of functions for a browser to find out how it should play some content. That "how" is separate from EME. EME could be used to say "this video is compressed zip version 9, unzip it with a compatible program before playing it". Or it could be used to tell the browser "this video is available in four bitrates and three codecs." Or it could be used to say "decode this video with a module called opendrm". Those things are separate from EME.
DRM _IS_ pointless. The implementation of this standard will boil down to a single if() in the source code of open source browsers, either disable copying of content or to enable a closed source plugin. Even with digital signatures, blocking "non-compliant" plugins from accessing the content is still a single if() somewhere in the code. The standard could mandate that a comment "// please don't remove this line." must be added to the source code of browsers, but in my view that counts as non-working DRM.
This is the same assclown who thought llittle-endian hostnames would be a great idea so now we're stuck with shit like:
store.mysite.com/some-category/some-product
instead of the more sensible:
com.mysite.store/some-category/some-product
for the rest of eternity. (Not to mention the brilliant idea to stuff a couple of slashes after the protocol name for no fucking reason.) What the fuck was this guy doing before he thought of adding pictures to gopher? Because it couldn't have been anything important...
> Clear Key will not work on ANY site, so its existence is irrelevant.
It *is* working, and has been working.
It always amuses me when people predict the *past* and still manage to get it wrong.
I hate DRM as much as anyone but lets face it, if he did not ratify it into the standard, DRM isn't then just gonna magically go away.
The only effect not ratifying it would actually have is to ensure the continued existence of a fragmented mess of multiple different actual implementations across different sites.
> And more relevant to this case, the BSD license vs the GNU license. Generalizing, the BSD license lets you do whatever you want with open source. OTOH if you use GNU-licensed open source to create something, you are required to release what you do as GNU-licensed open source itself.
>
> Honestly I don't know for certain which is actually better, or if one is better in some situations, the other better in other situations.
It seems to me that each fits different needs slightly better. Certainly, the GPLv2 has been wildly successful, with Linux and millions of other software packages. We all know what the BSD licenses are, more or less, so apparently they are successful too - you don't know about the Morris Public License, because it wasn't successful. What I choose for a particular project depends on my goals and how I expect it to be used.
We'll see how GPLv3 does compared to GPLv2. Personally, I don't use GPL v3 at all, if I have the option.
It will totally work as long as the AES key is stored on a computer that is never connected to the internet, or even better, only written on a piece of paper. (and you may as well encrypt random data, since no-one would be able to decrypt it.)
>Do we prefer a standardized, cross-platform approach developed with input from users or do we prefer the Sony rootkit approach? Those are the realistic options we can actually choose from. The standards bodies can't prevent DRM, they can only offer a reasonable way of doing it or leave publishers to implement it in all kinds of unreasonable ways.
EME is neither a viable standard nor is it in any way cross-platform and there was zero input from users. The input came from Adobe, Microsoft, Google, etc.
EME is basically something like NPAPI. it has a few API/html statements and is otherwise a proprietary blackbox for only very specific OSes, browsers, etc.
In this it works exactly 100% the same as Flash did: both have the same propeties.
EME is one of the unreasonable ways.
Those who cannot code their way out of a wet diaper need to get a grip and realize that giving away code only works when you have a benefactor to support you, and in the real world that benefactor is most often a fortune 500 company who profits from your work. This isn't T-Ball, you don't get a trophy just for showing up.
Exactly. If we want more Flashes and more Silverlights, by all means, fight against DRM in the browser. I, for one, do not. I will choose the lesser evil. We're going to need it until we "fix" copyright law, which could take literally forever.
One political revolution will end it pretty quickly. For some reason the US thinks they are immune to such a change, even when they see it happening all around them.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I would happily support DRM that actually cared about customers' rights. I want the guarantee that, like physical media, DRM-protected content will be available in the far future. Blu-ray already fails this test, and I only purchase Blu-rays to strip the DRM and save a long-term format. I want the ability to gift, loan, or sell any media that I possess the rights to. I don't want to possess merely a ticket which grants me admittance to content for a limited time, under limited conditions, subject to the dissolution of whatever producer, licencor, or operator manages the DRM scheme.
Because piracy has absolutely no effect on 99% of customers I am fairly certain that what content producers/licencors truly fear is "casual piracy" and fair use like loans and libraries where market forces drive the resale cost of digital media down to its natural price in the free market.
It's perfectly natural to resist inferior DRM schemes by refusing to make them standard. If you want me to support an open DRM standard then it needs to be capability based with normal customers like you or me represented as first class owners of those capabilities and implement a durable scheme for transfer of those capabilities into the indefinite future.
For example, consider a ownership-based scheme where producers issue N digitally-signed capabilities to a particular copyrighted work and sell them to customers on an electronic marketplace. Bitcoin has proven that it's possible to maintain a globally consistent transaction ledger of ownership of individual tokens, and a much cheaper implementation could maintain ownership and facilitate programmatic transfer of capabilities to digital works (to support sales, gifts, and even temporary loans) because the marginal value of acquiring more than one capability to the same work is zero and so there will be little need to spend gigawatts of electricity maintaining the blockchain against adversaries. The copyrighted work doesn't even have to be encrypted. Just make standards-compliant devices/software require current ownership of a capability to use the work. Yes, this is an easily defeated scheme for pirates, but so is every other DRM scheme. At least this respects individual property rights, the first sale doctrine, fair use, and libraries for the vast majority of users.
Quite clever. Let's be a tad more clear. Is there something you saw tried regarding death penalty policy that has worked so well in Oklahoma that you want to apply the same approach more broadly?
Or are you pointing that the approach you favor for all issues has utterly and completely failed when applied to the death penatly debate?
If we want more Flashes and more Silverlights, by all means, fight against DRM in the browser. I, for one, do not. I will choose the lesser evil.
You're assuming that they will be satisfied with whatever the DRM standard is and not go back to Flashes or Silverlights because they like them better. The problem with standardizing DRM is that it doesn't prevent companies from doing non-standard DRM if they still want to. Given that reality I would prefer that the standards bodies did not participate because it gains us nothing.
And it rather shows how someone having a bright idea doesn't stop them being a fucking moron. Tim, you're a fucking moron. Get a fucking clue and LISTEN TO YOURSELF sometime.
TIA, The Entire Internet.
in case I need it, even though I don't actually need it. Therefore copyright infringement is absolutely fine by you, right?
OR is your assertion as a hypocrite?
Quite what they think they'll buy with copies of the next movie is anyone's guess.
But here in reality the situation is 180 degrees turned around from your "thought". If they want to sell us content or even sell our eyes AS the content, they have to make it available. Behind DRM nobody can unlock and they don't even have the next movie to exchange for their electric bill being paid.
WE DO NOT NEED THE CONTENT.
The content is something we will find with or without them.
Therefore they can't win this war, since they have nothing if they don't let us access it. And with DRM, that's not letting us access it.
NB: will the content be outside copyright, since it will never be held to its end of the bargain?
INCLUDING the authoritative keys. Otherwise I can't implement it in my web browser because Netflix won't see a signature that it accepts is a legitimate target for the data it wants to send. Of course they won't allow that because I could write my browser so that it recaptures the video output rather than throwing it to hardware and not looking. But without that, only the closed source and legally mandated as unavailable except to the most wealthy and accepted "content creators" can write a browser.
Which is why this scheme is bullshit.
You will not be able to write Firefox and release the source code and have it access the DRM'd content, because you, the customer, is not trusted, and only those trusted by media will be allowed access.
Without DRM, there's no issue with trust and I can write my own browser to access video.
With DRM, I can not.
You're leaving out 99% of the cases.
Usually what they really do, is one of the above things, which doesn't work for anyone so it has to be pirated. And then everyone plays the pirated version, because it's the only one that works. And the pirated version works perfectly, and isn't limited to "select devices."
There already is a standard for DRM: not having it. Every time some fuckwit tries to "improve" on that (by making it not work as well), the market upgrades their perverted abortion to the standard.
The W3C Encrypted Media Extensions only defines a way to use Content Decryption Modules (DRM) but there is no definition for the the modules themselves. If their interface and format were 100% defined then that would be ok. However, they have specifically gone out of their way to avoid defining CDMs because they want to make CDMs platform specific and be able to reach deep into your operating system to "verify the environment". Just say they can have the EME if they completely define the CDMs and suddenly you will have exposed the fight for secrecy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Your TV has an app. You used to watch movies with an app called "Media Player".
So, no you don't need it in a browser. Having it in a browser only "means" something if the DRM code is freely available, unpatented, and can be implemented by anyone. Otherwise it's not a browswer, it's just an app that uses http transfers. It's as much a browser as MSOXML makes MS Office documents a browser product.
There is no DRM at all in it. Not there.Nonexistent. Not a standard. All that#s standardised is the tags you close the black box bitstream in to say "pass this on to this black box decoder that is 100% identical to flash, except every assclown will have written their own".
IOW the "standard" says "Here is how you specify this is DRMd conent". THERE IS NO STANDARD DRM IN IT.
One political revolution will end it pretty quickly. For some reason the US thinks they are immune to such a change, even when they see it happening all around them.
If we do have a revolution, I doubt we'll even get around to fixing copyright. It'll just be a new gang of assholes in business soon enough.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The language is not good, alright. but parent makes a valid point.
I would really love to see someone enlighten me on why it's downvoted to -1 for any reasons other than that.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Your framing, as with anyone who says DRM is somehow necessary, is giving into those who would take away the freedom the web was built on. I'd rather have a free web than a web DRM-based business owners feel more comfortable with because I value my freedom.
Even in the narrow terms defended by DRM quislings DRM doesn't work to exclude those who share copies of DRM'd works; virtually everything Netflix publishes is available gratis online anyhow. So what we end up is the very divided web DRM proponents claim will be avoided with DRM. Thus this debate isn't really about pursuing that alleged unification. Better to push for the freedom that got us to the point where businesses took an interest and sought to divide and conquer.
Digital Citizen
No, we don't have the "binary, single-OS and single CPU architecture blobs" part of flash in our browsers today, which is the problem and the source of many of the issues with Flash.
The DRM part is exactly what that adds just this.
That you can get it without it is not relevant: The default download will contain it, your parent's computer you have to fix will contain it, loads of websites will require it. What you're saying is like claiming that Flash was never an issue because you could always get a browser without it!
Could DRM be used by individuals as a form of private communication? They seem intent on putting a lot of work to make is secure and easy to use. Could I use DRM for secure communications between me and my friends? I've tried with PGP, and it was a real pain.
Think about it. Everyone is trying to keep the stone from rolling down the hill...rather than allowing the stone to roll, and be there to pickup the pieces. If it's bad then it will fail..if it's good it will succeed: not giving DRM a shot is basically like telling some small independent writer...screw you, you have no right to control your work.
Indeed. It's worth nothing that both Chrome and (soon) Firefox will banish plugins, ensuring that whatever DRM exists out there will have to be built into the browser through political clout and sponsorships. That means if you don't like the DRM, you have no ability to uninstall it, or possibly even disable it.
At the very least, we need a standard mechanism for managing DRM, which hopefully means being able to turn it off.
But since that revolution will never happen, it's useless to discuss it.
There's only a standard way to tell the browser that this is DRM'd content to hand off to a propriatory black box that is outside the standard.
Quite why slashdot, a geek tech site, gets such a moronic claim so highly recommended can only be explained by shills and retards infesting the site.
Tim Berners-Lee is over 60 now. He's well into the age where one knows which battles can be won, which cannot but be lost and which aren't worth fighting. Fighting DRM at this stage is futile, it's been a lost battle since a long long time. We might have had a better deal but this is better than nothing. It's easy for a basement-dweller neckbeard to type "no compromises" with their pudgy fingers on dorito-encrusted keyboards but out here in the real world we have to deal with armies of lawyers and lobbyists, and a public opinion that could not care less. We can play ball and accept DRM or the Internet will be balkanized (it's already happening) or simply turned into a larger version of Facebook, and into a million little walled gardens. Sir Berners-Lee is a realist and is still pushing for an Internet that, though not as free as we hoped it would be, is still better than the alternative. Make no mistake, the opposing side here as ALL the advantages, and despite what some deluded comments here say, we do NOT have the advantage of numbers. Maybe in the '90s it was true but not it's no longer the case. It's time to grow up and accept a compromise that still allows us some freedom of movement rather than be completely defeated.
Attacks the man not the ideas.
Requiem for the American Dream
Nobody is forcing the media companies to use the internet. If they want to use it, they can deal with it. We should not have to.
I don't watch their crap in my browser, why should I have to have a browser with this trash built in?
Why should I have hardware in my computer to handle this crap? Waste of good silicon.
Do we prefer a standardized, cross-platform approach developed with input from users or do we prefer the Sony rootkit approach?
False option on the dichotomy. The input coming from actual users is that we do not want it on the standard (or from some users that want it on the standard). The input on how to implement it is coming from the companies.
Either option pushes forward someone's interests. Because I believe in universal access to culture, I prefer the Sony rootkit approach, because it reinforces the idea that only DRM free stuff is safe, makes the "legal" way harder (when DRMd), favors DRM free vendors (these are actually selling the culture, not renting it), and favors piracy for those products that doesn't have a drm free option, and the free sharing of culture. Standardizing the DRM gives it a false sense of security, makes it easier to rent the content you are allowed to in your region (reducing overall spread), and pushes forward the interests of those who want to limit access to culture (by keeping the culture locked in their servers and only allowing certain people temporarily see it).
His point was that DRMing the browsers was equivalent to having Flash and Silverlight in every browser that it's possible to use. I agree with him.
it's sad DRM is needed, but people are responsible for that themselves. If people would never have ripped copies then DRM would never have been needed.
Now, for the internet to be "universal", that's just a load of crap, as a lot sites do not work acros a lot of browser, mostly they only work in the webdev's favorite browser (which mostly is Chrome or Safari), even though those browsers are acting more like what dev's in the past accused IE6 for doing (going beyond the defined specifications)..
His point was that DRMing the browsers was equivalent to having Flash and Silverlight in every browser that it's possible to use. I agree with him.
You're both wrong. Flash and Silverlight come with vastly more than DRM. If anything, it's like having a small part of one or the other of them in the browser. You can still object to that if you like, but it's not the same thing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"