Slashdot Mirror
HTML5 DRM Standard Is a Go (arstechnica.com)
Artem Tashkinov writes: The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the industry body that oversees development of HTML and related Web standards, has today published the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification as a Recommendation, marking its final blessing as an official Web standard. Final approval came after the W3C's members voted 58.4 percent to approve the spec, 30.8 percent to oppose, with 10.8 percent abstaining. EME provides a standard interface for DRM protection of media delivered through the browser. EME is not itself a DRM scheme; rather, it defines how Web content can work with third-party Content Decryption Modules (CDMs) that handle the proprietary decryption and rights-management portion. The principal groups favoring the development of EME have been streaming media companies such as Netflix and Microsoft, Google, and Apple, companies that both develop browsers and operate streaming media services. Following the announcement, EFF wrote a letter to W3C director, chief executive officer and team, in which it expressed its disappointment and said it was resignation from the W3C.
Every time EME comes up, a sizable number of Slashdotters announce they support it because "it's a DRM standard" and it means the end of plug-ins like Flash.
It is not a DRM standard. It's a standard for communication with plug-ins, known in this standard as CDMs.
And those plug-ins aren't like the old Netscape plug-ins, that worked (at the time) with every browser (except IE), with different versions only required for each CPU architecture and operating system combination. You won't be able to use your "Adobe DRM" plug-in for Edge under Firefox. In fact, every single browser, CPU, and operating system combination will require its own plug-in. Don't have one for your favorite browser? You're out of luck.
This isn't a standard, it's a non-standard. It's actually worse than Flash.
Shame on the W3C for adopting it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That this was entirely expected makes it no less sad.
When this protocol is used to disable adblock and any other previously free function of the web in the name of "muh intellectual property", don't cry about it.
This is the future you chose.......
Hell, they can vote in this country. Money is eating up all of our rights...
NPAPI. ActiveX. Java SE. Quicktime... shh dark words, forbidden words.
Can't wait for the security nightmare Bloat Boat to sail back to Browser Town.
Lol. Just lol. I dunno I haven't used anything but a linux desktop since 2009. Been working out pretty damn good for me.
I'm just putting this out there, but I suspect that there are going to be security-bypassing exploits for this that are going to make all the flash and java headaches we've had over the couple of decades combined look positively *mild* in comparison.
So what?
I don't mean I don't care about the issue, I mean that this decission was never in the hands of W3C in the first place.
It is, has been and will always be in the hands of the browser developers.
Google, Microsoft and Netflix are behind this (among others) so if W3C would not have approved, it would have happened anyway.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Following the announcement, EFF wrote a letter to W3C director, chief executive officer and team, in which it expressed its disappointment and said it was resignation from the W3C.
Do you see nothing wrong with that sentence? Is English not your primary language and not the language you are supposed to be editing? What's wrong with you?
I hope they enjoy their 20 silver. Assholes.
Wasn't it research?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
I remember a time when exclusive web content was locked behind walled gardens from AOL and MSN. I remember a time when most popular websites only worked with Internet Explorer and it's non-standard HTML extensions. I remember a time when most popular websites used shitty Adobe Flash widgets. Those things all went away because people won't stand for it (at least not once they have an alternative). The internet is a big place and if your website punishes users with unfriendly tech, there are a hundred other websites that will try to grab your users by giving them what they want.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
"third-party Content Decryption Modules (CDMs)"
i.e.: unreliably implemented on the browser, architecture, and version that you are using because it will be forever going out of date as the cat-and-mouse game between providers and users continues.
A standard interface to a plug-in hell will be almost as problematic as a non-standard one, but in the end you'll have a mysterious, closed-source binary ball with probable security flaws hanging off it. This is Flash and missing video codecs all over again.
I hope browsers allow the interface to be disabled.
My opinion is that Mozilla is to blame for this happening.
It wasn't long ago that Firefox had 35% or more of the browser market, and this allowed Mozilla to exert a lot of influence over how the web developed. They could take a given web standard and say, "No, we don't like this. Either change it or we won't implement it." Since their browser was being used by 1 in 3 web users, them deciding not to support a standard could basically render that standard irrelevant.
But that's no longer the case. Now Firefox has only about 5% of the browser market, and even that may be a generous figure. Firefox has only 0.04% of the mobile market. Yes, you read that right! 0.04%! Not even half of a tenth of one percent!
Its 5% market share puts Firefox well, well, well behind Chrome. It puts Firefox well behind Safari. It puts Firefox well behind UC Browser for Android.
With its 5% of the market, Firefox is now down in the region of browsers like Opera Mini and Samsung Internet. It's getting to the point where even web developers don't care enough to test with Firefox, because it just isn't worth it.
Keep in mind that this is before Firefox 57 is released. Firefox 57 has been touted as only supporting WebExtensions extensions, which could very well break a lot of existing extensions. I could see this sort of breakage being the final straw for many of the few remaining Firefox users, who will likely move to Chrome, Safari or Edge, thus sending Firefox's market share even lower than it already is.
Nobody cares what the developers of a browser with 5% or less of the market think. Such a browser is seen as irrelevant, its users wishes are seen as irrelevant, and its developers' desires are seen as irrelevant. None of its competitors have to give a damn what Mozilla thinks these days. This means that Mozilla has limited influence over the future of the web.
It didn't need to be this way. Firefox was doing so well until Mozilla started making change after change that Firefox users did not want. I know a lot of people will claim, "But Google advertised Chrome!". But that's just an irrelevant excuse. People continued to use Chrome instead of Firefox because Chrome gave a much better experience. It became even sillier to use Firefox after Firefox started imitating Chrome's appearance and behavior more and more, but not Chrome's superior performance and small memory usage.
If Mozilla had only listened to its users, and not made unwanted changes to Firefox, then Firefox would likely still have 30% or more of the browser market. If they had gotten the performance of Firefox fixed up, Firefox could probably have even had over 50% of the market. But now it's at 5%, and this number is decreasing.
Mozilla could have influenced the future of the web. But now that Firefox has lost so much market share those driving the development of the web (Google, Apple and Microsoft) no longer have to care what Mozilla thinks or wants!
Your view is subjective. Objectively, viewed from the outside, Linux has held you back and turned you into a mentally deficient socialist frothing at the mouth for MUH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Thunderbirds!
#DeleteFacebook
What's your major malfunction?
I guess that there will be tools circunventing DRM, because it happened before and is still happening, locking digital resources had proven to be ineffective and it brings more problems to deal for browser developers, they should use their own private tools and their own servers instead of piggybacking others, why don't they make their own private application and with that they could control what is loaded and prevent tampering easier.
I also think that EME could allow others to circunvent their media easier.
Numb nuts!!!!
Enjoy the free time.
If you actually found something of value to watch on Netflix, I congratulate you.
If you operate a site with open content, publish EME tags that prohibit any EME capable browser from accessing your content.
Effective today, EFF is resigning from the W3C.
I find that very sad. IMO EFF should be sticking around to continue fighting on other legal and freedom issues that are likely to pass through the W3C. Resigning after losing the EME fight stinks of the spoilt little child taking his bat and ball and storming off home in a huff after losing a game with the neighborhood kids. I thought the EFF was better than that.
The whole appeal of the web to me as as an information source, not a bunch of assholes begging me to run their crappy code or carry around their tracking devices (cookies et al). I could personally care less about CSS, Javascript, etc.. I ain't the one, guys. Run your malware ad-code and CSS dancing reindeer on *your* browser. Mine says no-habla. If that means I can't watch Netflix on my *nix boxes, oh well. I can do that on my 3DS or Playstation. This DRM "standard" will just become another attack surface full of exploits, mark my words.
It was nice knowing you, Web. Had a good run. Shame the corporations captured you.
Personally, I'm pursuing gopherspace. The W3C is dead to me. They had plenty opportunity to protect people on the Web and failed. Fuck'em.
"Following the announcement, EFF wrote a letter to W3C director, chief executive officer and team, in which it expressed its disappointment and said it was resignation [sic] from the W3C."
Way to bury the lede, editors.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
There are two ways of distributing protected content; through an app or through a browser --- and the dominance of the app diminishes the significance and utility of the browser.
Which has never been any great joy to use on any other mobile device than a full size laptop.
The geek doesn't like paying for content. I get that. But that is no longer a problem for anyone else. You want to keep the browser relevant? Then you have give it access to protected content.
Arsetechnia is chock full of cock suckers. ARSE readers wish they had a second tongue, so they can suck corporate cock and lick corporate arse at the same time.
The idea that you shouldn't be able to record a copy of anything that plays on your machine is ridiculous.
Amen! As a consumer, it is not my problem if your business model isn't robust enough to survive people copying data that you sold them access to. Keep your goddamed failed encryption strategies out of my browser.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Few people care what the developers of a browser with 5% or less of the market think.
FTFY
DRM is *SO LAME* :(
If it isn't clear, then the problem is you.
I concur and I encourage you all to keep this in mind anytime anyone proposes using proprietary software because that's one of the effects of what they're encouraging you to adopt—less control over your computer and the data that it handles.
Digital Citizen
These pricks can't agree on a video or VR standard but are cool with this??
A bunch of n i g g e r s in a room who claim to support humanity's best interests?
Yeah, no one chose this, you patronizing douche face
Here come the websites which you may want to visit for one reason or the other which require DRM.
Of course these sites use a plugin which is actually malware. Malware that is now protected by some DRM scheme.
Way to go W3C!
Perhaps you should list some examples of things Firefox users "didn't want"? Cause I'm pretty sure most people just want their browser to work with the websites they visit, and really don't care about much beyond that.
It became even sillier to use Firefox after Firefox started imitating Chrome's appearance and behavior more and more
I agree with this one, though I think you have cause and effect reversed: Mimicking Chrome I'm pretty sure was an attempt to draw users back who had already switched. Still silly to be sure, but I view it more as an after-the-fact panic move than a reason for their decline.
Chrome won because a) Google was still considered the perfect angel company at that point -- "Do no evil" was still the prevalent mindset, at least publicly, and everyone thought anything Google did would be amazing so they should give it a try. And b) Chrome was significantly faster (which gets back to the "just wants it to work" aspect,) so once they tried it there was little incentive to go back.
Really, Google wasn't even advertising it that much back in those days. The giant annoying popup you see now when you visit Google with something other than Chrome came (relatively) recently -- long after Firefox had fallen out of favor. Most of their "advertising" seemed to be word of mouth as much as anything (though I suppose some of the "word of mouth" may have been shills..)
And then of course there's Safari. All those Mac users no longer caring about Firefox after OSX came out since again, Safari passed the bar of "it just works."
Hell, if Microsoft had actually bothered maintaining and improving IE over those years it would probably still be the standard in Windows, antitrust lawsuits be damned. But as MS is wont to do, they sat back and shat the bed while the world moved around them and then tried to play catch up, adding plugins and whatnot at the eleventh hour after everyone had long stopped caring (and then they throw Edge in the mix as well, so even the users who did still care about IE can be confused as fuck by this new browser that has almost the same icon, works kind of the same for most pages.. and then suddenly breaks and tells you to load IE for the next page you click on..)
You're a content industry shill or an idiot. Most probably both.
and what happens to a standard if there is a successful campaign to uninstall / disable support for this...
DRM blocks will now cause.
- media blocks by region to become much more common. ( ala youtube video not available in your region )
- Sharing media links resulting in blocked content.
- DRM collection of PII data becomes norm. Creating rich honey pots of data for hackers.
of when the web was free and open to all. Then big media and their puppets in government got involved and ruined it for everybody. My grandkids may not believe me, but it will be the truth.
It seems that every time big business gets involved in something open on the internet, that project forks to keep a branch open. With the withdrawal of the EFF from W3C, did standards just fork? Will there now be two internet standards committees in the future? One for big business, one for everyone else?
Now we don't have to waste anymore time on HTML5!
I respect your opinion, and I'd wish it was that easy to deal with this situation that way, but just about every convenience brought to us over the internet relies on these technologies. my online bank, the IEEExplore portal, my favourite news sites, heck, even slashdot doesn't work without excessive NoScript clicking.
The thing is, Firefox's users by and large wanted something that worked like Chrome and was more stable, like Chrome. That's why they left in the first place. Changing the UI was easy for Mozilla, but making it more robust under the hood has proven to be a bit of a challenge. The most common complaints from Firefox's users are about memory usage, hangs and occasional crashes. The complaints about the UI are from a vocal, but teensy tiny fraction from Firefox's current, irrelevant, user base. Needless to say, they aren't shared at all with the user base Mozilla should be targeting if it wants to become relevant again.