Slashdot Mirror
W3C Erects DRM As Web Standard (theregister.co.uk)
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has formally put forward highly controversial digital rights management as a new web standard. "Dubbed Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), this anti-piracy mechanism was crafted by engineers from Google, Microsoft, and Netflix, and has been in development for some time," reports The Register. "The DRM is supposed to thwart copyright infringement by stopping people from ripping video and other content from encrypted high-quality streams." From the report: The latest draft was published last week and formally put forward as a proposed standard soon after. Under W3C rules, a decision over whether to officially adopt EME will depend on a poll of its members. That survey was sent out yesterday and member organizations, who pay an annual fee that varies from $2,250 for the smallest non-profits to $77,000 for larger corporations, will have until April 19 to register their opinions. If EME gets the consortium's rubber stamp of approval, it will lock down the standard for web browsers and video streamers to implement and roll out. The proposed standard is expected to succeed, especially after web founder and W3C director Sir Tim Berners-Lee personally endorsed the measure, arguing that the standard simply reflects modern realities and would allow for greater interoperability and improve online privacy. But EME still faces considerable opposition. One of its most persistent vocal opponents, Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argues that EME "would give corporations the new right to sue people who engaged in legal activity." He is referring to the most recent controversy where the W3C has tried to strike a balance between legitimate security researchers investigating vulnerabilities in digital rights management software, and hackers trying to circumvent content protection. The W3C notes that the EME specification includes sections on security and privacy, but concedes "the lack of consensus to protect security researchers remains an issue." Its proposed solution remains "establishing best practices for responsible vulnerability disclosure." It also notes that issues of accessibility were ruled to be outside the scope of the EME, although there is an entire webpage dedicated to those issues and finding solutions to them.
Digital rights is an ugly theft of words implying the rights of people, rather than the rights of greed ie digital wrongs. Where is the right to privacy, absent. Where it the right to the truth, absent. Where is the right to freedom from censorship, absent. All that is covered is the digital right to greed and the ability to print money and censor and silence the public, think those digital wrongs tools wont be extended out to mass censorship, how wrong you are.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Are there vendors, browsers or developers who have committed to not adopt this standard?
As with almost all technology, it depends on context.
DRM can be abused to lock up content far in excess of normal copyright protections.
DRM also makes new and useful business models practical, giving us modern replacements for old school rental stores from the likes of Netflix and Spotify, which obvious work out for a lot of people.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
No DRM has ever been effective in its stated purpose.
Stripping A/V from a stream is trivial.
The best way to circumvent it is to simply make iso files from DVD's and Blurays. It is so trivial APK and Hairyfeet could do it!
member organizations, who pay an annual fee that varies from $2,250 for the smallest non-profits to $77,000 for larger corporations
Clearly, the W3C created the EME standard to please its "member organizations".
Actually, these days DRM encourages piracy because it gets in the way of legally purchased media.
In this case, because of the method of application, this DRM is bad.
It hijacks YOUR computer because THEY want to control what you do with "their" data. The context that could make DRM fine is if it were in control of the two people on either end of the conversation (so that Alice and Bob can stop Charlie from listening in), but this one has Alice cutting Bob out too because they're "afraid" that Bob might record the conversation.
That just does not work.
But the context of in the HTML standard, when the "DRM" bit isn't actually part of the standard? Fuck no. A train wreck of an idea.
A standard is only as good as it is implemented in the wild. W3C can recommend all it wants but if web masters refuse to implement it or adopt it, it is just so much wasted documentation. This will likely result in a huge fragmentation of the web not seen since the AOL, Prodigy days of the past.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Quite true; Digital Restrictions Management (contrary to what another poster said, smart people do realize and don't allow the reframing of the language away from how most people experience DRM) doesn't affect those who get their copies stripped of the restrictions as is commonplace amongst those who share. DRM chiefly adversely affects those who participate in the process (whether they spend their own money to do it or are given it gratis).
DRM is the excuse publishers use to justify the ongoing control over one's computer, spying regime modern-day DRM schemes make possible and use, and thus pose genuine risks to everyday computer users. This is not about "balancing" rights as another poster said, this is about copyright holders and their business partners using a mechanism to get more control over your devices, your privacy, and your life than they ought to have. To publishers who claim they wouldn't engage in the process without DRM, I say that's fine but I want to see proof and lots of it; please don't publish without DRM controls you couldn't have a few short years ago (remember that DRM schemes always become more onerous over time and publishers always try to convince the public they can't get by without the higher degree of control). Let your competition distribute their work at whatever price they think they can get DRM-free and do with the reduced competition. The publisher's threat is (taken on the whole) an empty threat and everyone knows it.
Digital Citizen
If you wish to cause the current system of DRM to implode it's actually really easy, you just need to know how to play by their rules. All you need to do is simulate the CDM plugin environment of Microsoft's Edge browser and package it as a single program that can write the output to an unprotected file. It doesn't even have to output an optimized video file, a raw capture will do. They will be contractually obligated to stop using CDMs because they can no longer meet the standard of the "robustness rules".
With any other browser, it would mean only that specific browser would be unable to use CDMs but Microsoft isn't about to be left out of the game they helped fix.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
As with almost all technology, it depends on context.
The context of EME is the worlds Internet users.
DRM can be abused to lock up content far in excess of normal copyright protections.
DRM also makes new and useful business models practical, giving us modern replacements for old school rental stores from the likes of Netflix and Spotify, which obvious work out for a lot of people.
There is no mystery or question surrounding the result.
Content providers are somewhat limited to means of access and distribution to what people actually have unless willing or able to go out of their way. When you lower the barrier for making DRM viable the practical result is more DRM. This WILL happen.
This means more browsers downloading and executing black boxes from companies like Adobe. An outstanding trustworthy organization with an absolutely out of this world stellar security record.
For those who think restricting access and encouraging proliferation of closed proprietary bullshit is bad widespread EME in browsers does exactly this.
Protocol/standards designers have very little actual power to dictate terms to anyone yet they are hardly powerless. While capacity for mitigating unchecked commercial interests is often severely constrained the capacity to cause damage by letting them run rampant is not so limited.
When organizations like W3C allow themselves to be corrupted ICANN style it's time for those who care to divest themselves and support a competing structure. W3C is VOTING for the legitimacy to go ahead with this knowing full well there is nothing approaching broad consensus on the subject. The procedures they are using to achieve the desired result (DRM) is explicitly against their own stated principals.
This mostly seems to be a combination of paranoia and slippery slope fallacies, and for someone who wants to see "proof and lots of it", your own argument is remarkably devoid of any supporting evidence.
I suggest to you that the existence of services like Netflix is beneficial to a great many people, who now get to enjoy more content at lower cost than they otherwise would have. I also suggest that services like Netflix would be much less practical without DRM, since obviously anyone could just sign up for whatever the minimum period is these days, download huge amounts of unprotected content to keep them going for a while, and then immediately cancel their subscription so they don't have to keep paying even though they're still enjoying the content. And finally, I suggest that the average Netflix user doesn't even know what DRM is or "experience" it at all.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Is if your endpoint audio/video devices support HDCP and negotiate a connect with the remote server.
Anything less that that (notably relying on the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Arm Trustzone, or other TPM module implementation) allows the possibility of the stream being intercepted while still in digital form.
Even excluding all of those, all that is required *WITH* all this DRM in place to copy it is analog output of the audio to a capture device, and capture of the video stream from a monitor via a camera of sufficient resolution to capture the detail you want in the ripped video. Basically 'camming' like in the movie theater but off your local device.
The irony is all this shit can be ripped right now because of exploitable 'dedicated' devices, such as the TV sticks and roku boxes and such, which are how all the high quality rips ending up on the internet are getting there.
If they were serious about protecting their own intellectual property they would skip these web standards for about 3-5 years and revisit them with the lessons learned from making all those other devices airtight.
In the meantime it is just a violation of my security and my liberty for a bunch of assholes who haven't ever created anything, and who are still rehashing actual creators 'bought' ideas for the nth time (Matrix, Star Wars, etc all) Much like the discussion about patent law, it is about time to revisit copyright law and see about severely curtaining its money and power so it can return to being limited time private property for the good of the *CREATOR* (and not simply producer, publisher overpaid actors and other leechs, as it often is today) and after a sufficient time to recoup their expenses and a tidy profit towards producing a slightly more grandoise venture next time, returning it to the public where it can be built upon like so many other folk tales, tall tales, legends and other cultural works and respun into creations that would either reinspire their own creators or mollify them at how their work was reinterpreted. The more fluid culture is the faster it can grow, expand and refine itself. The current constrictive nature of copyright is only holding back the full potential, especially in regards to helping original creators shake off their own presumptions about what their own works mean.
If I create some original digital content should I not have the right to set the terms of use and distribution?
Nope. You should not.
In the grand scheme of things, what you should have the right to, is to be paid for the act of creation of the content.
(you should get remuneration for your work. not be entitled to use it as a rent)
But for historical reasons, the point at which money got collected was traditionally at the distribution, because back at the time when copyright laws were emerging, duplicating and distributing content was hard (if not the hardest part of the pipeline). And thus it was a happy chance that it could also help finance upstream creation.
But nowadays, once we're out of the dark ages and into the information age, with everything going digital, duplication and distribution is boringly trivial and can't be justified any more. Artists still need to get paid to create (They need to eat, after all), but the point at which the money is collected doesn't make a fucking sense anymore in the modern setting.
(Also note that a few small indie artists are moving out of this business model, and going back to older concepts of patronage. See platforms like Patreon, Tipee, etc.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]