Slashdot Mirror
Corporations Just Quietly Changed How the Web Works (theoutline.com)
Adrianne Jeffries, a reporter at The Outline, writes on W3C's announcement from earlier this week: The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy. Some rights holders, like Ubisoft, have come around to the idea that DRM is counterproductive. Steve Jobs famously wrote about the inanity of DRM in 2007. But other rights holders, like Netflix, are doubling down. The prevailing winds at the consortium concluded that DRM is now a fact of life, and so it would be be better to at least make the experience a bit smoother for users. If the consortium didn't work with companies like Netflix, Berners-Lee wrote in a blog post, those companies would just stop delivering video over the web and force people into their own proprietary apps. The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers; it's like replacing one library with many stores that each only carry books for one publisher. "It is important to support EME as providing a relatively safe online environment in which to watch a movie, as well as the most convenient," Berners-Lee wrote, "and one which makes it a part of the interconnected discourse of humanity." Mozilla, the nonprofit that makes the browser Firefox, similarly held its nose and cooperated on the EME standard. "It doesn't strike the correct balance between protecting individual people and protecting digital content," it said in a blog post. "The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source, something that goes against Mozilla's fundamental approach. We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point."
Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to try to exclude DRM is Mozilla, and unfortunately, if they do that, the users will switch to the browser that makes watching Netflix easiest. Also Mozilla sucks a bag of dicks these days anyway.
DRM is not open. You can't have an 'interoperable' DRM standard, because its entire purpose is to stop things from being interoperable.
It's better to force companies to make their own sub-par player (with all the bugs and security flaws that come with it) rather than trying to give them first class status in the browser.
"Did you exchange
a walk on part in the war
for a leading role in a cage?"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Just cancelled my subscription.
And kept on supporting full XUL extensions that would of been able to crack DRM and also allow users to disable things like in browser currency mining at the system level. I suspect Mozilla is being bribed to cripple their browser. Now corporations will be able to block out alternatives like Pale Moon due to the DRM being entrenched in Mozilla.
Not everything needs to be accessed through a web browser. Seriously. I have trouble imagining why that was the solution in the first place. Let them make their own apps and when they fail to move eyeballs away from the web, let them come back and play nicely with the rest of us.
And if these apps don't fail and provide unique, worthwhile experiences that people are willing to pay for DRM or whatever scheme included, then that's the way it will be. We computer people are the minority here. Just because it may ruffle a few ideological and dogmatic feathers doesn't make the situation any worse than it already is.
The internet was made with open sharing in mind. Corporations don't want to participate in sharing, ergo we get crap. Personally I think we have to many little apps on phones as it is, now we will have the too many little apps problem on PCs as well.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
But that's happening anyway. It's just that the "proprietary apps" are called EME modules or drivers or whatever.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time. (Because every service needs its own.)
That other 10% is going to keep us all working full time. Job security for anyone who makes money on when users lose. We'll be like construction contractors in a full-year hurricane season. The more broken windows, the better.
Fuckwits. We all need to be running browsers such that everyone can see user agent strings where they know this DRM fiasco isn't implemented. The server logs themselves need to say "you're going to lose money on this customer if you require EME, because they're just going to switch to pirating in order to be able to view the content."
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
If the consortium didn't work with companies like Netflix, Berners-Lee wrote in a blog post, those companies would just stop delivering video over the web
Um.. the very fact that they've been delivering it for years without DRM being baked into the web, proves this statement false.
Isn't that the tune of every collaborateur supporting an oppressive regime? Isn't that what makes them work in the first place? Having a few hundred "we could not change anything alone" soft assholes for every actually die-hard one?
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Who said that, Gandhi? Damn right.
I wish more people would pay attention to what a serious issue this is. Average people just don't get it. They would be just as happy with the old, proprietary AOL client if it gave them access to all the same content they currently consume. They neither know nor care that it is open. It's a dark age indeed.
You made your choice. You bought their poison. Now you can live with it.
"Mozilla, the nonprofit that makes the browser Firefox, similarly held its nose and cooperated on the EME standard."
This is complete and utter BULLSHIT. In fact Mozilla was one of the biggest proponents of DRM, EME, and other rights-grabbing horse shit. It was a means to garner favor among the elite and perhaps get back some market share as a "recommended" browser.
What some Mozilla lackie writes in a blog post does not undo what Mozilla spent years working on.
Why let them have the web as their nefarious enabler? Have them publish their aps; and, when they see the limited audience, have them fail.
The pirates will have the browser on their desktop, the closed source portions will be cracked before you can say boo.
The hackers get a mildly amusing challenge. The corps get nothing because they were too stupid to know what they should want, and everybody else has a screwed up browser.
Yay.
I am sorry that the W3C had to approve DRM. However most of the arguments against it are rather lame. Most people just want to watch their movie. They don’t want to copy it or use it unfairly. But the thing with digital media is if it is too easy to copy and share. That is what will happen. Old anolgies with VCR do not apply because that is an Analog copy so every copy is degraded. While every copy of digital data is the same. And now with high speed networking it is rather efficient to share previously too much info. Even weak DRM is enough to stop most people and going to court it is easy to prove malicious intent.
Does it goes against Open Source Standards? Yes it does. However the world doesn’t rotate around open source standards.
If you want to get rid of it you will need to blacklist all the sites that use it. And properly boycott the DRM material. This doesn’t mean pirating the content. But going without it in terms of protest. Pirating the content will only show there is a demand for their product and double down on the DRM to fight piracy more.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why are these companies obsessed with DRM in browser? I can still do an video and audio capture on my screen as I please, re-encode, and record.
This does not help anything.
Someone needs to fork HTTP and create a competing standard.
What happened to their server?
Probably bad article. Other rights holders such as Netflix? Sure, Netflix has some small number of Netflix originals. They hold the rights to those. But most of the things on Netflix are held by other rights holders. That's why Netflix often can only show them in certain regions. The actual rights holders - the Disney's (for now), the Comcast's (they own a lot), etc. are the ones that won't allow Netflix to show anything without DRM. Get it right guys...
The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers; it's like replacing one library with many stores that each only carry books for one publisher.
The "best stuff on the Internet" isn't movies and TV. Those can be gotten lots of different ways, or can be left, altogether. It's just stupid corporate entertainment crap, by and large.
The "best stuff on the Internet" in my opinion, is still there, and isn't going to be effected in any way by DRM.
I don't respond to AC's.
From TFS:
The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers
This argument makes no sense. Essentially, the argument is that it's better to have the best stuff on the internet hidden behind walls in the browser rather than hidden behind walls in apps.
Either way, it's hidden behind walls -- so from my point of view, it's a distinction without a difference.
But I will confess, I don't think this idea that the browser should be a one-stop portal to everything on the internet is a good one. I think that it pretty much guarantees that the utility of the various services is reduced.
I think email and file servers are a good example of what I mean.
You've corrupted the HTML5 standard for zero benefit to anyone. All of these services use proprietary technology anyway! Now the stupid fucking media companies think that they automatically get a say in the decisions that shape the Web from here on out. Thanks, I hope the empty gestures of fake appreciation from soulless corporates were worth it.
"Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point."
Hey, Mozilla, worry about continuing to be relevant --- DRM is the last of your worries. ;-)
What can be viewed or listened to can be re-recorded and freed of DRM. DRM is just a massive inconvenience to legit users, but nothing that'll stop me and all the other freeloaders.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If you still aren't pirating everything-video that is DRMed, then you're the problem. This would not have happened if you had not financially supported DRM. You went to work and spent the sand grains of your tiny little life's hourglass doing what someone else wanted, and then you got paid for your time, and then sent some of that money to the people who manipulated W3C into doing this. Really, you helped pay for what happened.
But you can help to keep things from getting worse: STOP FUNDING IT. Make it so that when a company forsakes users in exchange for DRM, they really feel it in their bottom-line numbers, and have to lay off their employees, pay less dividends, etc. Make their CEO go to the stockholder meeting and say, "Well, we tried DRM so obviously I realize you're all dreadfully unhappy. I hereby submit my resignation.." followed by the messiest-possible public suicide.
Hurt them, and never, ever pay them!
Pirate their works, and teach others to pirate it. Every school and workplace should have a sneakernet of the latest movies on USB drives. Every home computer should be sharing their entire movie and TV collection over darknets. If a person that you once knew is paying for Netflix, make them an outcast and make them understand why, and how they can get back into society.
Are you working on this, or are you working against being able to play media with the software of your choice? Because whoever you are, you are definitely doing at least one of those things. Think about what you're doing.
Remember the people who built the Internet in "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet".
let's try an experiment and wipe the "best stuff on the internet" off the internet and see if life goes on!
The existing standards are all in the open. The W3C has been infiltrated by corporatists, and no longer serves it's original purpose.
So, if the W3C has stopped having the interest of the people at heart, why not come up with our own that's safe for all?
I'd be fine using a different browser to surf DRM'd content. Give me a privacy respecting browser, not a "me too" browser. Mozilla seems too concerned with marketshare and as a result don't stand for anything anymore.
Now all the top-quality Hollywood content people STEAL, only to be disappointed by its "social agenda" themes, will become totally inaccessible except by "DRM-Liberated copies".
DRM Liberation is a very important goal, much like woman's liberation, and various gay liberations. The oppressive DRM scheme is designed to keep a wider audience from being exposed to the forward-thinking ideas embraced by the modern film industry. As such, DRM is a clear enemy of all women, including homosexuals and minorities.
HTML already has the object tag, which allows one to put any binary proprietary code one wants to use into a web page. So as I understand it all this EME tag does is standardize what was already available for DRM.. I don't like it but they already had the power with the object tag.
The only things I watch (a very small number of TV series) are not available were I live anyways, just horrible dubbed versions later. So I download them, which is legally tolerated here. For the rest: You DRM, I do not watch. That is far worse for you than for me. Make me a decent legal offer and you _will_ get my money. Decent includes that I can store this locally in as many copies as I want, can play it on Linux and the quality of sound and image is good. Do not make that offer and I will certainly not become your victim.
Incidentally, the EU has been keeping a study under wraps which basically says that the only thing negatively impacted by "piracy" is blockbuster movies. I used to pirate the occasional one, but have given up because they are all so extremely stupid and bad. The whole idea of DRM is the embodiment of the utterly stupid belief that the customer must be fucked over in order to maximize profit. Well, it does not work that way. Not anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy.
Glad someone is learning, finally.
Yet,
The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source,
You still want to go down this road? Knowing all too well, it's not going to work. It's not going to stop piracy. It's going to irritate legitimate customers. And the Open Source community will not touch proprietary stuff.
Must this insanity continue? It's all wrapped into one post! They know it's stupid and ineffective, but they're going ahead with it anyway? I'd rather they all just make their own stupid proprietary apps and die in a corner. Stop infecting the rest of us with your insanity!
DRM is simply folly. It DOES NOTHING but make the DRM makers richer and irritates everyone. Cut it out already. Takes a special kind of stupid to recognize what you're proposing is stupid but going ahead with it anyway. Stop the stupid.
The DMCA regulation like most only is "national" laws.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on operate in many countries where such regulation is invalid.
Sure, they cannot have US researchers or other researchers who live in countries where DMCA matter do reverse engineering, but what if they hire a group of researchers in lets say Germany or India? They can continue business as usual, or am I wrong?
Or how does this regulation impact people in countries not covered by DMCA?
It depends. In many nations, it doesn't affect things at all. In many, it does (a nation may not have a DMCA-type law itself, but may be obligated by treaty to help the US enforce the DMCA).
Your point is a great one, though. People seem to have forgotten one of that primary effects of the old US law that classified strong encryption as munitions for export purposes: the US was not where most serious crypto research took place, and fell behind in the crypto race.
It's easier for these interests, to get the W3C, to collectively encourage all browser creator members, to uniformly support a closed DRM interface into the browser, than it is to provide long term 'closed module' addon support, since it is really only certain Corporations, that require this.
Say if Netflix, DIsney, Hollywood, whomever.. doesn't do this, they now have to have a team of developers, to support their product on every browser update any release. That costs money.
Skip all that, and insure the browser creators, have your pretty little 'DRM' module embedded in their browser, and you're support cost of you video product, is orders of magnitude cheaper.
As always, this was and is, about money. Easier and cheaper to bribe, excuse me, LOBBY W3C members, and push a majority, NOT UNIVERSAL position in the Consortium, then the long term support alternative.
Besides, controlling large swathes of data on the Internet, is it's own market now.
Here's hoping a '2nd Net', overlaid within the current framework, and without this bullshit starts up. Of course, I can always browse the web with 'Lynx' right?
Not everything needs to be accessed through a web browser...Let them make their own apps and when they fail to move eyeballs away from the web, let them come back and play nicely with the rest of us.
Home PC sales ---if not in free fall --- can't be described as particularly healthy. While the Netflix app is installed on a gazillion cell phones, smart TVs, video game consoles, 4K Blu-Ray players, Roku set top boxes and god alone knows how many other toys and gadgets. Netflix has all the eyeballs anyone could ask for. The same is true for all the giants in media and marketing.
The big boys don't have play nice with the geek anymore.
"Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point."
Well, given that Mozilla has dragged its feet on implementing DNSSEC DANE TLSA, which is the ONLY viable solution to the problem of public CAs, for seven years, they sure as hell can drag their feet for far longer on whatever the W3C decided here. It is up to browser vendors to implement whatever they want to implement. Mozilla can still say "no" by simply not allowing DRM software into their web browser.
Stupid proprietary apps. Then the frustration of users would be directed at stupid Netflix instead of forcing the entire web to use their poor standards.
... take a principled stance, not implement this, but serenely operate in a world where some other person or group maintains a differently branded browser forked from their open source one? No, Mozilla is not that principled.
Steve Jobs famously wrote about the inanity of DRM in 2007.
His push to remove DRM from downloaded music purchases was noble and probably the best thing he ever did. But then he turned around and exposed himself as a complete hypocrite by refusing to do the same for movies. Could it possibly have been due to his large stake in Pixar? Hypocrite.
The argument that movies are somehow different from music and therefore should have DRM is complete and utter bullshit. Both are consumable media that can be played on a variety of devices and exist in a variety of formats. In both cases, DRM encumbers this for the legitimate paying customer, and is always circumvented by the pirate. There is simply no valid argument in favor of DRM for movies if you are against it for music. None.
I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he'd applied the same anti-DRM pressure to movie studios but lost. However, he argued that it wasn't the same thing, and that DRM for movies was ok. He was with them the whole time. Fucking goddamn hypocrite.
>It is important to support EME as providing a relatively safe online environment in which to watch a movie, as well as the most convenient
Its slightly more convenient than torrents. Less so when you hold 4k netflix behind a kaby lake, windows 10 edge only browser exclusivity. However the payment model sucks donkey nuts. On steam I can pay the developers and publishers directly for their works, and ignore the shitty ones. I'd like to think collectively, this has an effect on the overall quality; shitty content creators get nothing.
But amy schumers 'netflix special' was likely paid for, as the sub goes to everyone. Then there is bitrate, which has a directly impact on bandwidth costs. Lower, and it saves them money, so where is their incentive, to make it high enough(for a given amount of motion)? No. I could even remedy some of that myself, with madVR, were I allowed to use my own video players. Thats not mentioning editing or traveling and taking actual files with you.
Streaming is 'enough' for me when its livestreams, as they make sense. But if its tv shows, anime and movies, netflix and co can get fucked.
It doesn't matter if it is on the web or in an app, I still have to pay for netflix so it is still locked away and not available on the web. this just changes it so that they can use browsers to play their content instead of being forced to create their own apps.
Browser makers will now be blamed for any malware instead of the people actually making money from the content.
Ill see you all in the corrections camp when they start rounding people up for not having a traceable Internet footprint.
I give it two months following the first widespread implementations before an open source library accurately duplicates the mandatory closed-source portion. Maybe three if they did an especially good job on the algorithm.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time.
I'm not particularly happy about the EME spec begin adopted. I really hate DRM for a wide variety of reasons. However, I don't think the scenario you paint is going to happen. Web browsers today are intensely focused on protecting users from malware, and if EME modules start to become used as malware vehicles, you'll very, very quickly see browsers implementing EME module whitelists and similar countermeasures.
No, the real problem is that all of the content on the web will begin using DRM, with one of the standard, trustworthy EME modules that will ship with all of the browsers.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I read Tim's blog post to try to open my mind to this. It said "people want to comment on Netflix". I'm a bit tired of the idea that we need to reshape the web to help Netflix. But in the comments there was a gem: if the vendors want this functionality, all they have to do is go back to Flash!
I was never a fan of Flash and I'm glad that HTML5 has taken its place. However, this suggestion does seem both appropriate and viable to me. If the vendors want this level of brokenness, they can work on Flash until it works. Technology that makes things break intentionally is not a useful part of a web standard. The only likely result is that people who have truly paid will still not get their content. Shocker. Use Shockwave Flash if you want to attempt to make a system like this.
DRM is like locks, it only keeps honest people out.
But check your own behaviour, do you lock your house, you car ?, if you do then you believe they have some value.
"Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM"
"So we're going to cave in on a fundamental axiom of the free and open internet and blame everyone else for that."
FUCK.
YOU.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn"
Firefox puts CDMs in a fairly strict sandbox, and most sites will end up using Google Widevine anyway.
There's a lot wrong with the headline.
The alternative to EME isn't no DRM; it's Adobe Flash. Which we've had, and suffered with, for a very long time. EME standardizes, so some degree, DRM so that we can dump Flash.
Of the EME-producers, it's Apple that's the evil one... regardless of using Flash or using a non-Apple EME... such as Widevine in Chrome... you cannot detect HDCP; Apple does not document that and yet uses it in their Fairplay CDM. So neither Flash or Widevine in Chrome can enforce HDMI per the OPL, and yet the Safari Fairplay EME CDM can, meaning you need to go full Apple to see HD on an external monitor unless a toughened custom viewer is used.
EME doesn't really freeze out other browsers either. Firefox has supported Widevine for years. Mostly what this does is allow us to dump the enormous vulnerability surface of Flash.
But of course "evil corporations are corrupting the internet" does SOUND better than "EME helps you migrate from Flash."
Call it what it is. The restriction from access for the purpose of profit generation. Any claiming otherwise is a bald faced liar.
apparently it works both ways
Seriously, can multinational corporations actually not corrupt everything?
It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy.
A Brittish kayaker was killed by pirates this week, so it is very clear that they do the most serious of harm.
To compare pirates to people who infringe copyright is a travesty which dishonors the real victims of piracy. It is the equivalent of Colbert calling Mitt Romney a murderer. Only Colbert isn't serious when he makes the accusation.
msmash's continued insistence on using the word pirate in lieu of copyright infringement in article after article reinforces the framing language desired by the MPAA and RIAA. It is used to demand harsh punishments for minor crimes. It is also indicative of the biases which tarnishe the reputation of objective news reporting as a whole.
Whenever we talk about open standards we get the argument about Free Speech vs Free Beer. When asked to defend our position, we talk about free speech but what we really mean is free beer. We want all our content to be free. Music, movies, news, etc. We want to get on the web and browse all day long with our Ad blockers enabled and see whatever we want without paying anything or letting the content owner make money from the advertisers. We want all our software to be free too. All those programmers can make their money some other magical way! Is it any wonder that content owners resort to such tactics when we try to cut them off from the very motivation they had for creating it in the first place?
Some dumbass there wondered if there were any people who thought EME's alternative was flash or silverlight, therefore EME was a brilliant idea.
Somehow you missed that entire conversation.
I'd be happy with DRM that worked like that. The DRM code is multi-platform open source, like SSH and SSL. I generate a key, submit it to them, they send me encrypted content. I can put it the key in any device I want. Including my copy of mencoder.
That system would be a lot more convenient, as well as being exactly as effective as any other.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Literally not possible. You can't give a party access to content while simultaneously preventing them from having access to it. Somewhere between the encrypted stream coming in and the glowing lights on the screen, the content is in the clear and available to be copied.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Corporate members said yes. They stacked it until they had 50%. Develpers and users said no. The W3C said, 'Corporate members aren't going to compromise, so we'll ratify it anyway. Sorry angry (real) majority.
Are there any glowing-white-hats with ion hammers that will promise to blast any site using this protocol off the internet until they stop?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
We were infested by Sony malware on a CD. Our CD purchases dropped to 0. Our pirate music increased. Then it faded to 0.
DRMd DVDs caused a few Windiz installs, that caused DVD movies purchases to 0 out. Our house changed to Linux, so Windiz lost too.
Now we switch off DRM in our browsers & remove Flash capabilities. We do Netflix ony on a dedicated 8 core streamer box that can do much more. That box is separate from our computers!
Is short, DRM has reduced and eliminated profits from us.
The fact that he's a knight means he was of service to the empire. And now he's being of service to another empire...What's happening here is that Berners-Lee and Jeff Jaffee have convinced themselves that by making this a standard, they will make the injustice of DRM smoother and less annoying in minor ways. And they've convinced themselves that that's the purpose of their lives...
He should handle it by saying no. But he can't really. And the reason is he set up an organization which is controlled by the businesses that want to put in the most money... By structuring it so it's controlled by the businesses, they've structured it so it wouldn't defend us from those businesses.
He is right, and TBL is an evil asshole destroying what he helped to create (he didn't create it alone like people like to say).
"Richard Stallman" - Lunduke Hour - Apr 14, 2017 the interview.
It's a very different organ, it's considerably more concave than the homan nose, and they"holding" it wide open on billions of people around the world.
I mean what harm is there in removing it? It is not like, for instance, destroying a cities water supply. Do we really need it?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Corporations Just Quietly Changed How the Web Works
If it's so quiet, can't you tell me what you're talking about before I have to start clicking links?
After reading and rereading the first few sentences I can infer w3c are introducing drm to the internet.
Is it so hard to say "...about introducing drm to the internet"? Then the first sentence would give a tiny bit of context instead of none.
I will pay for content when I can access it without use of closed-source executables. So long as you want me to instantiate code I cannot audit, I won't be buying your content. Sorry.
Publishers & Producers: "If copy protection doesn't work, let's put DRM in an app to protect content."
Public: "Fine, I'll just stream it from Russia since in USA it's not illegal to download, Copyright only comes into effect if I try to distribute it (limewire, BT, etc.)"
Publishers & Producers: "Waaah! No one will install our shitty apps just to watch our shit with DRM in it!"
Public: "Just make it easier to pay for and browse ad-free than shitty streaming sites, and we're good. You can't stop piracy, they just won't watch if it's not freely available."
Publishers & Producers: "FUCK THAT! Lets force DRM into Browsers so everyone HAS to have DRM."
Public: ...
[time passes, the cat and mouse game escalates]
Public: OK, since web is dead, we've built a new distributed mesh content system based on Nasa's Disruption Tolerant Networking and Named Data Networking that way it's censorship proof, anonymous for both producers and consumers, and there's no one to file a DMCA takedown against, it would be impossible to comply with anyway. Bonus: We solved the latency issue because the backbone now has caching at all nodes. Free Colo for All!
Publishers & Producers: "We want DRM installed in people's cybernetic vision enhancements! Malware causing blindness is a vast dark-wing conspiracy theory. ISP's & infrastructure we're suing you directly for hosting the content."
Public: "OK, buy a software defined radio and join our global wireless mesh. Bigger the antenna & cache, faster your access. Zero monthly fees for Internet access!"
Publishers & Producers: "FCC! You need to ban these Wireless Terrorists! Please give us an exemption for jamming devices to save the Music & Movie industries!"
Public: "FCC is not voted for, it is appointed unelected sock puppets. Wifi & access to data is a human right. Many people's brains communicate with their organs by wifi. We will remove troglodyte tyrants by any means necessary!" ...
[time passes]
Publishers & Producers: "We're all out of ideas anyway, even for scripts. Let's rewrite history to fix it! We'll charge the calendar, call it 'Gregorian' and add 1000 years to give us some wiggle room in the retelling, split their religion of truth into pieces and pit them against each other, rock-paper-scissors like. Now we just need a reason to confiscate and outlaw all technology except papyrus scrolls & stone tablets. Issue the firmware update to the CopBots, we'll blame it on cyber-malware."
Public: "We defeated the Robot Rebellion, but there's no fucking way we're going to give up our free flow of data! Eat shit, I'm Firin' Mah Lazor!"
Publishers & Producers: "BURN THE WITCHES AND HERETICS!"
[fast forward to present day]
Publishers & Producers: "If copy protection doesn't work, let's put DRM in an app to protect content."
Surely in the age of asymmetric encryption we don't need to protect our DRM techniques through obscurity.
Surely they realise that having a closed source DRM module won't actually protect it?
Surely they... oh wait, these are the people that can't even combat piracy effectively.
Ubisoft don't want to punish paying customers with DRM? That's new to me.
Does that mean that they are going to remove Uplay from all those Ubisoft games sold on Steam?
Or does it mean that they are using Uplay to prevent those that dislike DRM from becoming paying customers?
Sue them to provide and maintain their DRM decryption modules for each and every OS, both current and future versions, which can possibly run on a desktop. I think every DRM demanding company will soon back down on their demands for DRM.
You think EME version 2.0 won't be able to encrypt source code next?
This guy gets it. Entire sites will be considered copyrighted media. Don't load the plugin? All you get is "Sorry, your browser is not compatible with this site." with some links to download Firefox, Chrome, and IE.
file:
I already get this on some sites.
I, don't go to them again after that.
I won't be using any DRM supported browser!
Screw them. I'll retain ownership of my machine and nobody else is authorized to utilize it.
The trouble with DRM is that if the company who made the thing retains control of it after you bought it, you don't own it, you're just renting it at prices that should have bought it. Fuck that.
The daily noon email broadcast is sending the same stories over and over.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Look up "copyright harmony", and you'll find the answers you seek young padawan.
In short - the US DMCA has an affect on every nation it has trade agreements with and if you need a recent example of how this plays out, look at the Kim Dotcom case.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.