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."

9 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. DRM is not open by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re: DRM is not open by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Properly-implemented DRM can have totally open control & ui software... it's just that historically, control-freak content owners and their enablers aren't content to merely prevent you from copying and redistributing their precious content, they ALSO want total control over the way you *consume* it & your viewing experience.

      Copy PREVENTION is child's play. Any video subsystem created after Vista & Protected Video Path can prevent copying, because everything from key exchange to hdmi output is done in hardware. Every SoC used by Android & iOS has the same capability.

      So, why does Google & Apple still fuck with your ability to watch videos on a rooted/jailbroken device? Because they don't JUST want to prevent you from copying the video, they also want to make sure you can't fast-forward over commercials (or play commercials in a subwindow while you do something else). If they could get away with forced-engagement ads (tracking eye movement & pausing the commercial if you weren't paying enough attention to it), they'd do it in an instant.

  2. Then let them make their own apps by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Then let them make their own apps by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly! Instead, they opened up WWW to all kinds of abuses by DRM.

      I think it is time to move on from W3 as it became damage.

    2. Re:Then let them make their own apps by crtreece · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The web hasn't changed here, your non-EME-compatible browser can still access stuff.

      I was all set to do some moderation in this thread until I saw this. I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture. This isn't just about streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser. Pretty soon every website is going to have a DRM component to "protect their IP". That means ad-blockers, noscript, flashblock, firebug, and any other plugin that is used to modify the functionality, or display of a website, or controlling the loading of content from third parties is going to be worthless. You want to watch Netflix? You need our DRM, which excludes all that other stuff. Want to read your favorite news, tech, sports, entertainment, clickbait, or any other website? Same thing. The DRM plugin will force the full volume flash ads, malware-laden click-the-monkey crap served up by an ad network, and anything else the site wants down your throat.

      This is going to turn the internet into cable TV. 47 gazillion channels, and it's all commercial filled crap.

      --
      file: .signature not found
  3. It's still proprietary apps. Nothing accomplished. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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
  4. Makes no sense by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Life isn’t perfect by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is not watching the movie. Yes, DRM is here to stay regardless as Hollywood won't release media without it and that is not negotiable.

    What bothers me is people changing standards at a whim to enrich corporations without the consequences. Another poster for example mentioned malware. THIS IS AWESOME FOR RANSOMWARE. No Anti virus product in the world can scan for it as the DRM protects it's contents from being viewed or scanned.

    You just go to pornhub.com or xhamster and an infected h.264 codec with executable code embedded in runs on unchecked as your systems security is prevented from stopping it by DRM.

    New Malware can use HTML 5 with EME embedded in for the payload and won't be able to be stopped or scanned or researched either. A nightmare is an understatement. What's next? Facebook might use EME version 2 which bans 'view page source' to protect it's intellectual copyright. Javascript will be undebugable next. More malware can come in as a result and people will not know how the web works anymore as you can't debug or view javascript or HTML 5 anymore.

    Any corporation can come in and buy it's seat and voting right to protect it's self interests of more profit without consideration from anyone else.

  6. Re:Life isn’t perfect by crtreece · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Think about how this is going to apply to the general web, not just streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser. Pretty soon every website is going to have a DRM component to "protect their IP". That means ad-blockers, noscript, flashblock, firebug, and any other plugin that is used to modify the functionality, display, or control the loading of content from third parties is going to be worthless.

    The DRM plugin will force the full volume flash ads, and malware-laden click-the-monkey crap served up by an ad network. Sites will become channels, with their DRM required to view the content; ads, videos, and all. You're non-EME browser will simply display a message that it's not compatible with the site.

    --
    file: .signature not found