Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Officially Appeals Tim Berners-Lee Decision On DRM In HTML (techdirt.com)

Posted by msmash on from the doing-the-right-thing dept.

Last week, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) decided to officially recommend the use of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) for protecting copyrighted video on the internet. This will enable web surfers to watch media in a browser that requires Digital Rights Management copy protection without the need for browser-based plugins. "It moves the responsibility for interaction from plugins to the browser," the consortium states at the time. "As such, EME offers a better user experience, bringing greater interoperability, privacy, security, and accessibility to viewing encrypted video on the web." TechDirt shares an update: It's been a foregone conclusion that EME was going to get approved, but there was a smaller fight about whether or not W3C would back a covenant not to sue security and privacy researchers who would be investigating (and sometimes breaking) that encryption. Due to massive pushback from the likes of the MPAA and (unfortunately) Netflix, Tim Berners-Lee rejected this covenant proposal. In response, W3C member EFF has now filed a notice of appeal on the decision. The crux of the appeal is the claimed benefits of EME that Berners-Lee put forth won't actually be benefits without the freedom of security researchers to audit the technology -- and that the wider W3C membership should have been able to vote on the issue. This appeals process has never been used before at the W3C, even though it's officially part of its charter -- so no one's entirely sure what happens next.

13 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Seems like drm should be a PLUGIN to me. by michaelcole · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good for the EFF. Donated $50 because of this very issue. https://www.eff.org/issues/drm

    1. Re:Seems like drm should be a PLUGIN to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      fuck that, thankfully regardless of the result EFF have lost this fight. EME is being included in most browsers regardless. While you and the EFF may find it offensive the rest of us just want shit to work, when I browse Netflix or whatever other streaming site I choose I don't want a fucking plugin and all the incompatibilities, support issues and problems that come with it. If your solution to not wanting this is plugins then you have already lost.

    2. Re:Seems like drm should be a PLUGIN to me. by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Way to totally miss the point. The point here is whether or not the W3C will allow outside researchers to fully audit (see: break) the EME encryption without punishment from rights holders. Tim Berners-Lee bowed down to the pressure of the MPAA and other entities to not allow that, which is a shitty thing to do considering this is being presented as an Internet standard.

    3. Re:Seems like drm should be a PLUGIN to me. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EFF may find it offensive the rest of us just want shit to work, when I browse Netflix or whatever other streaming site I choose I don't want a fucking plugin and all the incompatibilities

      Right.... Plugins are history. And DRM should Not be grafted into an open standard such as HTML. If Netflix insists on DRM-encoded content, only option should be to use their own custom protocol with an external viewer: Not the web browser, because they are not implementing a "Web site", at that point, they are implementing an encrypted binary blob that can only be viewed using proprietary software.

  2. I don't get the controversy by i_ate_god · · Score: 4, Insightful

    W3C has created a standard set of Javascript APIs, and DRM providers provide a similar set of standard APIs that can talk to the JS APIs.

    The web isn't suddenly locked down and all browsers must be closed source now. If you don't want to use DRM, then don't go to DRM enabled services like Netflix. You are not entitled to anything Netflix, Hulu, etc has to offer.

    I feel there is a lot of FUD here, and in many cases, there is a conflation between allowing Netflix to send you content, and the erosion of net neutrality which is a separate, unrelated, and in my opinion, far more worrying problem.

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:I don't get the controversy by Vairon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there's a vulnerability in this closed source module that can't be examined and someone browses any website on the web that exploits this module then a user is at risk without ever visiting Netflix.

    2. Re:I don't get the controversy by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The web isn't suddenly locked down and all browsers must be closed source now. If you don't want to use DRM, then don't go to DRM enabled services like Netflix. You are not entitled to anything Netflix, Hulu, etc has to offer.

      That's not even half the problem. The W3C's own mission statement states that:

      The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability.

      I run Linux on PowerPC and can see everything that complies to standards on the net just fine. Who is going to port their DRM to Linux let alone PowerPC?! I can't watch Flash stuff but it's also not an open standard. However, with the EME I cannot watch several platforms despite complying with every standard.

      I have zero problem with those companies withholding their services from me but I object to mere suggestion that they should be able to claim that they are complying with open standards. There is no standard interface or format for CDMs which is a problem because the EME is specifically designed for them.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:I don't get the controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only as the other poster said xhmaster, youtube and many ones could switch to DRM video (I wouldn't care that much if they allow 480p DRM-free, require DRM on 720p or 1080p)

      But a far greater danger is if H265 stills with DRM are used all over the place to replace images, text or even whole websites.
      Will some famous person in a position of power tweet a one-picture DRM "video"? Does that track or de-anonymize users? If your hardware is obsolete or the "wrong" kind (VGA monitor, or even HDCP 1.x eventually, or MIPS CPU, etc.) are you left out?

      Will blind people be confronted with pictures of text (already a problem)?
      And, even politics are carried out in web video nowadays (as freedom of press is going backwards in my country, and clowns and talking heads are infesting TV even on public service)

  3. Re:Riiight.... by Mouldy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the alternative is relying on flash or silverlight or some arbitrary other player to watch video - then yes, EMEA does offer a better user experience.

    This isn't a question of whether DRM is good or bad - it's a question of, we're already stuck with DRM so can we make it a bit less painful by providing native browser support.

  4. Re:Riiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not a bettr user experience, it's the same user experience. Hell, it'll be worse, since each EME black box would have to be written specifically for each OS and browser since it will have to interact with both at higher levels of authority than either flash or silverlight did. That means not only MORE plugins to fuck about with, but ones that more completely hose your entire system when hacked.

    Tell me how it's a better experience?

    If you want a better fucking experience, download a specific app to display the content. E.g. iPlayer or Netflix et al. At least then you'll only need one for each streaming store, rather than one for each version of DRM that each distribution company decides for each film company they operate with. And it won't be limited to a view or operation paradigm that fits in a browser.

  5. Stripped in 3, 2, 1... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You want to win the browser war and become the dominant browser? Then better be the browser where this junk can easily be removed so people can watch their content the way they want to.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Stripped in 3, 2, 1... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The vast majority of people want to get what they expect. What do they expect? Well, basically what they're used to. What are they used to? TV and video. So what do they expect? Basically, a VCR experience. Including the option to fast forward, rewind, skip what they don't give a shit about, pause where they want to and watch it as often as they like for buying once.

      Offer that and they won't bother to ask their geek friend how to get what they want. I somehow doubt that they'll get all that out of the box, though. So it will be the same that we already had back when their DVD and BluRay players started to "misbehave": Geek, fix that for me!

      And gladly we will be of service again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Riiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean like when USER Bob can't get his key to verify because Reasons while PIRATE Johnny has no problems?

    Yeah