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.
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.
Could of should of would of
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.
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.
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.
"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
What 'would of' corporations lock Pale Moon out of? Their DRM protected content? There's a whole web out there. Some of us will adopt a browser like Pale Moon if it protects us from 'protected' content.
*could have should have would have
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.
I suspect Mozilla is being bribed to cripple their browser.
No, Firefox doesn't have nearly enough market share to be worth bribing. Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome.
Now corporations will be able to block out alternatives like Pale Moon due to the DRM being entrenched in Mozilla.
I'm not sure what you mean here... Pale Moon could, if it wanted, implement EME as well. I hope it doesn't, but it could.
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.
I'd rather just avoid that content entirely, thanks.
Wfooff!
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
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.
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.
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's funny...
That statement from Mozilla was the one that made me realize that Mozilla was no longer the organization that I knew and loved. It also marked the moment when I began to seriously think that the day was coming when Firefox would no longer meet my needs.
Too late. Firefox added EME support quite a while ago.
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.
"Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome"
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
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.
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
Firefox allows far less customization than it used to (that's why extensions like Classic Theme Restorer are necessary -- and even those will stop working with 57). Firefox has not become a complete Chrome clone yet, but every release that's happened in the past couple of years has taken another step in that direction. That's why I believe being a Chrome clone is an overt design goal.
Here's hoping a '2nd Net', overlaid within the current framework, and without this bullshit starts up.
There are a number of such efforts right now. Probably the best known of these is freenet.org.
like locks, it only keeps honest people out.
People are fond of this saying, but it's not now, nor has it ever been, true, or at least not in the sense it's usually intended (it is true in the sense that no lock is impenetrable).
The purpose of locks (physical or digital) is to increase the effort required to gain unauthorized entry. Locks keep out more than just honest people -- they also keep out criminals unwilling or unable to expend the required resources to break them.
Essentially, it's using economics as a self-defense measure.
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.
W3C should create a new protocol and plugin standard for the new DRM content. People who want DRMed content can then use the DRM plugin. People who want to avoid DRM can use vanilla browser.
If W3C does not agree to this separation, fork HTTP. We don't want a DRM backdoor for spyware and malware.
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."
Then why doesn't Netflix show its own works without DRM and others' works with DRM?
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?
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
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.
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.
Mozilla is not that desperate to go out of business. You're suggesting that Mozilla do the heavy lifting, then let someone else rebrand Firefox and include support for EME? Please.
The "social justice" hypocrites who run Mozilla sure do love licking capitalist boots.
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:
Oops, I gave the wrong domain name. It's really https://freenetproject.org/
Mozilla is not that desperate to go out of business.
From the outside, it sure looks like they are.
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.