10 ms·

You Can't Destroy the Village to Save It: W3C vs. DRM, Round Two

216 points by cpeterso 11y ago

epistasis 11y ago
I know my opinion is not a popular one, but I find these arguments somewhat less than convincing. The goal seems to be to reduce the spread of DRM. I'm cool with that. However, I'm not sure that these actions will do anything at all to reduce the usage of DRM. My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. So in order to stop spread of DRM, keeping DRM non-standardized would have to prevent others from adopting DRM. So the ultimate question for me is: who's going to start using DRM that's not already? I think this set is zero. Adding standardization of DRM won't close up any more content that wasn't closed before, IMHO. However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. So I see something to gain, and nothing to lose by standardizing DRM. I'm making assumptions to arrive at that conclusion, but I believe that they're no worse than the ones that Cory Doctorow is making here. It's just weird to see myself diverging from the EFF on this, and on T-mobile, and other things.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There are always people on the fence. I see this sort of attitude appear all over the place, from terrorism to suicide prevention and now DRM. People have already made up their minds, it's said, and they'll do what they've decided to do regardless. It's just not true. Lots of people are pushed only weakly towards one side or the other. Making it easier to go one way and harder to go the other way will influence where people in the middle end up.
- xenadu02 11y ago
  I think you underestimate inertia. Once encrypting JS is just a checkbox in your IDE, management and lazy developers will just check it.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    Aha, so encrypted javascript is something new that I've not seen mentioned in any of these discussions! However, does EME allow encryption of javascript? I thought it was just for playback elements in <video> and <audio>? Searching a bit, I can't find evidence that executable javascript could be encrypted.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I've seen proposals to allow EME to control access to any browser resource: images, fonts, scripts, even HTML itself. The proposals I've seen look a lot like Service Worker, but with an opaque obfuscated container running a blob.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Good news for unblockable adverts and ad-delivered malware! Running code that can't be inspected or blocked is really not a good idea.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        That confirms what I wrote in bug 923950. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=923590 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=923590
  - wmf 11y ago
    AFAIK DRM servers are very expensive, although maybe once EME is mature we'll see DRMaaS that will sway more content providers to use DRM.
    - snuxoll 11y ago
      Azure Media Services Content Protection
- dublinben 11y ago
  >those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd This is patently false. From 2003 to 2009 music sold on the most popular online store, iTunes, contained DRM. Due to competitive pressure from Amazon's DRM-free store, Apple also dropped their DRM. It once seemed impossible that the major labels' digital music would be sold without DRM, but now that is the norm. Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to. However, it's also worth noting that the music industry is the only major content industry where this has been achieved. If anything, things are going the other way with video content. There have been stories this week about Netflix cracking down on those who are circumventing region locking using VPNs. It seems big name shows are increasingly being offered via proprietary pay-per-view systems run by their production organisations, and centralised libraries like Netflix are either not carrying the material or dropping content they used to offer. We still have different release dates for movies in theatres in different countries, and for films and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray. A recent trend seems to be for US TV shows not to release new seasons on Blu-ray at all here in the UK, so you can buy the lower quality version on DVD or you have to sign up for yet another online service to watch in HD, assuming you even have access to such a service from where you live. All of these measures are overtly consumer-hostile, but there is little the consumer who enjoys TV and movies can do if the entire industry moves that way (short of resorting to illegal channels and risking the consequences, which obviously is what a lot of people do in practice). The software industry is similarly screwed up. We've gone from buying a copy of something and being able to use it, to buying a copy but needing remote activation, to buying a copy but needing varying degrees of ongoing online access to continue using it, to not even being able to buy a copy and merely renting. Personally I draw the line before I get that far, and refuse to pay for any important software unless I can reasonably expect it to continue working indefinitely. Even then, my businesses have been screwed repeatedly by varying degrees of ongoing online access or cutting off support, and slightly surprisingly, the most expensive professional software is by far the worst for this and for fixing the mess is something goes wrong. I really hope that before too long the law starts to reflect the real relationships with modern technologies, where the original vendor who would traditionally be the main second party in a purchase contract is effectively just providing an introduction to the real other party, which is the organisation that makes the software/service and is (or isn't) going to provide ongoing support and/or retain ongoing control over it. I also hope that smaller, disruptive software businesses who are starting to take on industry heavyweights can demonstrate that money talks and enough customers are willing to vote with their wallets for less one-sided arrangements. But for now, the possibility that industry heavyweights like Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk are going to give up their vice-like grips built on DRM and related technologies seems more remote than ever, and all of them are pushing hard in the opposite direction.
- pornel 11y ago
  Note that W3C did not standardize DRM in a usable, interoperable form that you'd expect from a standard. They merely accepted a JS API for launching non-standard proprietary DRM Content Decryption Modules. API of these modules is deliberately undefined and left to be browser-specific. It's just as standard and interoperable as using W3C's <object> to launch Flash.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Standardization provides endorsement. If DRM requires a non-standard plugin, and plugins themselves become increasingly verboten, at least some folks who might have used DRM may decide that they want to reach a wider audience instead. Consider what happened when Apple refused to allow Flash on their platform; that certainly accelerated the decline of Flash, or at least forced the development of Apple-specific approaches for that platform. So what would happen if Chrome and Firefox had stood together in solidarity and said "no"? I don't think the answer would have been a mass exodus to IE; for that matter, what if IE had gone along with it? (Edge already bans plugins.)
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    So what would happen if Chrome and Firefox had stood together in solidarity and said "no"? Given that Google has been one of the biggest voices in favour of EME, that seems rather unlikely.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Yeah, the thing is that Chrome interests are inseparable from Youtube's, and unless they can force the media companies to let go of DRM, like Apple did to music labels, they need some kind of solution. And frankly, what's in it for them?
      - toast0 11y ago
        Apple uses DRM for subscription music, but not music you've paid for a perpetual license; why wouldn't Youtube use DRM (at the copyright owner's request) for music and video when you haven't paid them for a license?
      - magicalist 11y ago
        Does youtube use DRM? All the youtube download extensions suggest not.
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
- Touche 11y ago
  > However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. Flash is only disappearing because of Web DRM. The situation gets worse for Linux users. Instead of installing the Flash plugin and seeing DRM content through it, now DRM only works if you are using Google Chrome because it's the only browser with Hollywood-approved DRM scheme. As for users of FreeBSD and other less popular OSes, well Google Chrome doesn't have a build for you, so you lose this content completely.
  - kefka 11y ago
    Well, not really. Netflix and such need Chrome to play videos because of DRM. Well, let me see: Netflix doesn't cache any videos, so if I want to watch something more than once, it's smarter to download it unencumbered. And then it gets to the point that pirating most of your content makes sense again. If you're going to be a scofflaw, might as well go all the way, and get the good experience from it.
- jedbrown 11y ago
  Standardization makes it easy and reliable. If those that insist on DRM need to navigate unreliable, mediocre technology, it requires more development effort and delivers a sub-par user experience, thus leaving the door open for DRM-free competitors.
  - akjj 11y ago
    No, because Google, Microsoft, and Apple could have coordinated on implementing EME even without an official W3C stamp of approval. Or they could have implemented 3 separate APIs for DRM. Netflix and others would be mildly inconvenienced, but that's something they could deal with. As long as content producers insist on DRM, which they do for video, the sub par user experience is going to be with the platforms that don't support Netflix.
    - gsnedders 11y ago
      Reminder that HTML5 started without an official W3C stamp of approval. (Hell, it started with the W3C membership voting against any further work on HTML, thus the formation of the WHATWG.)
- AndyMcConachie 11y ago
  I think I mostly agree with you. I think standards bodies operate most efficiently when they provide a bit of choice. If some browser writers want to implement DRM in their browsers I would rather it be standardized than not. Simply because the W3C doesn't standardize it does not mean it will not be implemented in browsers. It's not like W3C standards are binding legal documents. From TFA: Much of the "Web" is disappearing into apps and into the big companies' walled gardens. If it is to be relevant in the decades to come, it must do everything it can to keep the Web open as an alternative to those walled gardens. Then remove a reason for the web to disappear into walled gardens and allow the W3C to standardize DRM. Not providing ways for everyone to serve up their content via the web will only accelerate movement to other mediums. I like the idea of the non-agression covenant. But the obvious problem with it is that implementers of EME don't have to sign it. It looks like it only covers those who participate at the W3C. It's a rather strange legal concept, and possibly unenforceable, but I'll leave it at that.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. The way to deal with them is by not accepting them in return, and only using alternatives. Losing money bites, and they can quickly straighten their crooked ways out of fear for competition. That's the only method that works for curing DRM disease.
- tveita 11y ago
  > My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. Of course they will. The big media companies like to posture and pretend they're going to take their ball and go home, but the customers hold all the power in this relationship. It's not like they are going to leave money on the table by sticking to dying platforms out of a religious devotion to DRM, they just think they can have their cake and eat it too by bluffing.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. That is simply not true. Flash was on the way out with or with out EME, Chrome and IE was already doing it. With out EME they still would have moved forward with their implementations of Widevine and PlayReady respectively. Netflix would have still switch to it, and Chrome on Linux would have still played Netflix. EME did not result in "Content coming to Linux" and there is no guarantee it will continue. It will be up to the individual CDM makers, in this case google, if they want to continue to include the binary blob on Linux. No different than Flash. If google chooses tomorrow to remove widevine from Chrome on Linux, there goes your Netflix and any future "HTML5 EME" enabled websites Further many other "HTML5" Browsers can not play this content because the binary blob required is not there... making it non-interoperable with any true FOSS gnu/linux operating system. Firefox has to pay Adobe for a CDM Plugin under pressure from their less than idealist users... "HTML5" as a standard should mean anyone implementing the spec is able to see all content built on the spec. Sadly with the inclusion of EME sites like Netflix can claim to be "HTML5" compliant while still preventing every FOSS HTML5 browser from viewing any content. That is not a WIN for Standardization, or a WIN for interoperablity
clock_tower 11y ago
You can't destroy the village to save it? Quite often, especially in the western highlands, South Vietnamese villages were honeycombed with Vietcong tunnels and situated on NVA infiltration routes; if you relocated the people and leveled the village, you really would save the villagers by destroying the village. (Even if you ended up bringing VC infiltrators along in the relocation, at least they'd be cut off from the NVA's regular army and more or less out of communication with Hanoi.) A shame the resettlement program was so grotesquely corrupt... If only the coup against the South Vietnamese civil government had come sooner, we could have won that war. Of course, the EFF would've been on the Communist side; so the analogy works from their perspective.
stcredzero 11y ago
People need to realize that DRM is simply a tool. Absent pernicious laws like the DMCA, forms of DRM are like fences, locks, and cameras. Such tools can be used to oppress people. The same tools could also be used to protect individual's privacy and act as a check on what organizations can do with people's data. Those who control products and infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to set up such tools to grant themselves disproportionate power. However, individuals need to realize that such tools could help protect them as well. (Analogy: Camera phones and police misconduct.)
- mikeash 11y ago
  What would favorable DRM look like? How could I use it to protect my privacy or limit what organizations can do with my data?
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    Look at Active Directory Rights Management Services, prime example.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    To give one practically useful example, the same kinds of technology that could potentially restrict access to content on your own devices could also restrict the use of information in the workplace, preventing the leakage of sensitive personal data due to inside jobs. This is a legitimate and very practical concern for organisations operating in fields like healthcare, finance and defence.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      So for example, my medical records might be DRMd with the keys in my possession, and I could give them to a clinic and give them read rights, but the DRM means they would have a hard time sending that data elsewhere without my permission?
      - Silhouette 11y ago
Silhouette 11y ago
I'm not much of a DRM fan. That said, the W3C has already become borderline irrelevant to the future of the web, as it has been far too slow to standardise everyday technologies that have been widely deployed in browsers for a considerable time. Realistically, actively refusing to cooperate seems unlikely to stop browser developers from implementing new features. It's just going to mean that those features work differently from one browser to another, and possibly that some browsers or platforms won't offer the features at all. Personally, I'd rather the W3C work within the bounds of reality as a moderating influence than have it become a mere talking shop with no real influence at all.
- magicmu 11y ago
  "...the W3C has already become borderline irrelevant to the future of the web, as it has been far too slow to standardise everyday technologies that have been widely deployed in browsers for a considerable time" This is a bold statement, but one that I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with. I suppose now it's a matter of figuring out what should replace the W3C; things are only going to move faster.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    It is a bold statement, true, but I stand by it. A decade ago, if I wanted to look up how something in say HTML or CSS worked, I'd probably go straight to the W3C site and just read the spec. Today, my first ports of call are places like MDN, caniuse.com, or sometimes places like the Babel documentation or kangax's ES6 compatibility table. I can't remember the last time I read anything on the W3C site. I do find myself there now and then, but sadly, it is simply irrelevant to most of my daily web development work. What matters in a world with ever-moving goalposts is what browsers can actually do right now, which today basically means which of the evergreen browsers have support currently, which of their LTS releases also have support, and what the situation with IE and possibly older mobile browsers is, as validated by actual testing in each case. I really wish this weren't the case, because the lack of standardisation and vast numbers of browser idiosyncrasies makes development much more onerous and less reliable than it should be. But the W3C just couldn't keep up, and for now the browser developers seem to be mostly ignoring it as a result.
pornel 11y ago
This spec (W3C EME[1]) has been introduced and heavily lobbied by Google and Netflix. Regardless of what W3C decides, Chrome won't drop Netflix support, and Netflix for now seems to be hell-bent on having total legal control over which devices are allowed to play their content. [1] https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/ https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
guelo 11y ago
Am I understanding this right that the idea is that if a member of W3C sues anybody for reverse engineering their DRM then they get kicked out of W3C? I wonder how much of a deterrent that is. W3C needs Google/Microsoft/Apple more than they need W3C. The content producers aren't even members of W3C I don't think. I guess it would be companies that create the encryption plugins like Adobe that could theoretically sue people under the DMCA. I just don't see how the W3C could even function without the biggest players at the table.
- ascorbic 11y ago
  No, the idea is that they have to sign a legally binding covenant beforehand, agreeing to not sue. If not then their DRM doesn't get into the standard in the first place.
  - takeda 11y ago
    Yes, so what the repercussion is when they break that contract?
    - manicdee 11y ago
      They will be asked to cross their heart and hope to die at the next opportunity to corrupt the open standard.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      They lose their court case. I'd imagine it's a pretty simple defence against a patent suit if you can present a covenant by the patent holder saying they won't sue.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
chris_wot 11y ago
I don't expect Tim Berners-Lee to agree to this, given he was the one who championed DRM at W3C in the first place. Also, I don't expect Mozilla to do anything useful, given they went along with it so easily. But then, I haven't expected anything much of Mozilla in a long while.
- gsnedders 11y ago
  > I don't expect Tim Berners-Lee to agree to this, given he was the one who championed DRM at W3C in the first place. The W3C is in a somewhat awkward place, really. To some degree, the W3C is beholden to its member organisations, and if they want to do something it frequently happens. That said, it's easier to refuse to work on something than to work on something the majority of members don't want (HTML comes to mind there!). > Also, I don't expect Mozilla to do anything useful, given they went along with it so easily. But then, I haven't expected anything much of Mozilla in a long while. I think people vastly overestimate how much influence Mozilla actually has. Look at how long Mozilla held out against H.264, and all that did was cause them to lose marketshare (because plenty of HTML video simply wouldn't play in Firefox) with no affect on the web as a platform.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Sort of makes me wonder about why people give money to Mozilla if they have such little influence.
    - acdha 11y ago
      Mozilla has influence, not control. That doesn't mean they're not valuable for keeping things from being even more skewed by e.g. being the only non-DRM vendor in the room. The HTML5 video situation is a bit complicated, too, as H.264 was simply better across the board: standardization, quality, speed, tooling, hardware support, etc. There was only one reason to choose WebM and that was the belief that it might not be covered by patents, which mote optimistism than something you could be rely on. That point really needs to be fought in the next generation or two where you aren't waiting until the contest is over before getting started.
dendory 11y ago
I think the security aspect is the best option. If a CEO can't access some proprietary web app and is told "You need to use browser X that supports DRM", then they will be "Why isn't that already installed on my system". But if they are told "The web app uses hidden code that may be insecure, and cannot be audited" then you'll have executives, people in actual power positions, say "Get that stuff off our network".
bitwize 11y ago
Either the Web will adopt DRM or the Web will be considered extremely suspect as a distribution medium. Similarly, either you will accept backdoored encryption or you will be automatically considered a terrorist and singled out for LE scrutiny.

216 points by cpeterso 11y ago

I know my opinion is not a popular one, but I find these arguments somewhat less than convincing. The goal seems to be to reduce the spread of DRM. I'm cool with that. However, I'm not sure that these actions will do anything at all to reduce the usage of DRM. My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. So in order to stop spread of DRM, keeping DRM non-standardized would have to prevent others from adopting DRM. So the ultimate question for me is: who's going to start using DRM that's not already? I think this set is zero. Adding standardization of DRM won't close up any more content that wasn't closed before, IMHO. However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. So I see something to gain, and nothing to lose by standardizing DRM. I'm making assumptions to arrive at that conclusion, but I believe that they're no worse than the ones that Cory Doctorow is making here. It's just weird to see myself diverging from the EFF on this, and on T-mobile, and other things.

mikeash 11y ago
There are always people on the fence. I see this sort of attitude appear all over the place, from terrorism to suicide prevention and now DRM. People have already made up their minds, it's said, and they'll do what they've decided to do regardless. It's just not true. Lots of people are pushed only weakly towards one side or the other. Making it easier to go one way and harder to go the other way will influence where people in the middle end up.
xenadu02 11y ago
I think you underestimate inertia. Once encrypting JS is just a checkbox in your IDE, management and lazy developers will just check it.
- epistasis 11y ago
  Aha, so encrypted javascript is something new that I've not seen mentioned in any of these discussions! However, does EME allow encryption of javascript? I thought it was just for playback elements in <video> and <audio>? Searching a bit, I can't find evidence that executable javascript could be encrypted.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    I've seen proposals to allow EME to control access to any browser resource: images, fonts, scripts, even HTML itself. The proposals I've seen look a lot like Service Worker, but with an opaque obfuscated container running a blob.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Good news for unblockable adverts and ad-delivered malware! Running code that can't be inspected or blocked is really not a good idea.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      That confirms what I wrote in bug 923950. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=923590 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=923590
- wmf 11y ago
  AFAIK DRM servers are very expensive, although maybe once EME is mature we'll see DRMaaS that will sway more content providers to use DRM.
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    Azure Media Services Content Protection
dublinben 11y ago
>those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd This is patently false. From 2003 to 2009 music sold on the most popular online store, iTunes, contained DRM. Due to competitive pressure from Amazon's DRM-free store, Apple also dropped their DRM. It once seemed impossible that the major labels' digital music would be sold without DRM, but now that is the norm. Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Content industries can and have changed their minds on DRM when consumers force them to. However, it's also worth noting that the music industry is the only major content industry where this has been achieved. If anything, things are going the other way with video content. There have been stories this week about Netflix cracking down on those who are circumventing region locking using VPNs. It seems big name shows are increasingly being offered via proprietary pay-per-view systems run by their production organisations, and centralised libraries like Netflix are either not carrying the material or dropping content they used to offer. We still have different release dates for movies in theatres in different countries, and for films and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray. A recent trend seems to be for US TV shows not to release new seasons on Blu-ray at all here in the UK, so you can buy the lower quality version on DVD or you have to sign up for yet another online service to watch in HD, assuming you even have access to such a service from where you live. All of these measures are overtly consumer-hostile, but there is little the consumer who enjoys TV and movies can do if the entire industry moves that way (short of resorting to illegal channels and risking the consequences, which obviously is what a lot of people do in practice). The software industry is similarly screwed up. We've gone from buying a copy of something and being able to use it, to buying a copy but needing remote activation, to buying a copy but needing varying degrees of ongoing online access to continue using it, to not even being able to buy a copy and merely renting. Personally I draw the line before I get that far, and refuse to pay for any important software unless I can reasonably expect it to continue working indefinitely. Even then, my businesses have been screwed repeatedly by varying degrees of ongoing online access or cutting off support, and slightly surprisingly, the most expensive professional software is by far the worst for this and for fixing the mess is something goes wrong. I really hope that before too long the law starts to reflect the real relationships with modern technologies, where the original vendor who would traditionally be the main second party in a purchase contract is effectively just providing an introduction to the real other party, which is the organisation that makes the software/service and is (or isn't) going to provide ongoing support and/or retain ongoing control over it. I also hope that smaller, disruptive software businesses who are starting to take on industry heavyweights can demonstrate that money talks and enough customers are willing to vote with their wallets for less one-sided arrangements. But for now, the possibility that industry heavyweights like Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk are going to give up their vice-like grips built on DRM and related technologies seems more remote than ever, and all of them are pushing hard in the opposite direction.
pornel 11y ago
Note that W3C did not standardize DRM in a usable, interoperable form that you'd expect from a standard. They merely accepted a JS API for launching non-standard proprietary DRM Content Decryption Modules. API of these modules is deliberately undefined and left to be browser-specific. It's just as standard and interoperable as using W3C's <object> to launch Flash.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Standardization provides endorsement. If DRM requires a non-standard plugin, and plugins themselves become increasingly verboten, at least some folks who might have used DRM may decide that they want to reach a wider audience instead. Consider what happened when Apple refused to allow Flash on their platform; that certainly accelerated the decline of Flash, or at least forced the development of Apple-specific approaches for that platform. So what would happen if Chrome and Firefox had stood together in solidarity and said "no"? I don't think the answer would have been a mass exodus to IE; for that matter, what if IE had gone along with it? (Edge already bans plugins.)
- Silhouette 11y ago
  So what would happen if Chrome and Firefox had stood together in solidarity and said "no"? Given that Google has been one of the biggest voices in favour of EME, that seems rather unlikely.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yeah, the thing is that Chrome interests are inseparable from Youtube's, and unless they can force the media companies to let go of DRM, like Apple did to music labels, they need some kind of solution. And frankly, what's in it for them?
    - toast0 11y ago
      Apple uses DRM for subscription music, but not music you've paid for a perpetual license; why wouldn't Youtube use DRM (at the copyright owner's request) for music and video when you haven't paid them for a license?
    - magicalist 11y ago
      Does youtube use DRM? All the youtube download extensions suggest not.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
Touche 11y ago
> However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. Flash is only disappearing because of Web DRM. The situation gets worse for Linux users. Instead of installing the Flash plugin and seeing DRM content through it, now DRM only works if you are using Google Chrome because it's the only browser with Hollywood-approved DRM scheme. As for users of FreeBSD and other less popular OSes, well Google Chrome doesn't have a build for you, so you lose this content completely.
- kefka 11y ago
  Well, not really. Netflix and such need Chrome to play videos because of DRM. Well, let me see: Netflix doesn't cache any videos, so if I want to watch something more than once, it's smarter to download it unencumbered. And then it gets to the point that pirating most of your content makes sense again. If you're going to be a scofflaw, might as well go all the way, and get the good experience from it.
jedbrown 11y ago
Standardization makes it easy and reliable. If those that insist on DRM need to navigate unreliable, mediocre technology, it requires more development effort and delivers a sub-par user experience, thus leaving the door open for DRM-free competitors.
- akjj 11y ago
  No, because Google, Microsoft, and Apple could have coordinated on implementing EME even without an official W3C stamp of approval. Or they could have implemented 3 separate APIs for DRM. Netflix and others would be mildly inconvenienced, but that's something they could deal with. As long as content producers insist on DRM, which they do for video, the sub par user experience is going to be with the platforms that don't support Netflix.
  - gsnedders 11y ago
    Reminder that HTML5 started without an official W3C stamp of approval. (Hell, it started with the W3C membership voting against any further work on HTML, thus the formation of the WHATWG.)
AndyMcConachie 11y ago
I think I mostly agree with you. I think standards bodies operate most efficiently when they provide a bit of choice. If some browser writers want to implement DRM in their browsers I would rather it be standardized than not. Simply because the W3C doesn't standardize it does not mean it will not be implemented in browsers. It's not like W3C standards are binding legal documents. From TFA: Much of the "Web" is disappearing into apps and into the big companies' walled gardens. If it is to be relevant in the decades to come, it must do everything it can to keep the Web open as an alternative to those walled gardens. Then remove a reason for the web to disappear into walled gardens and allow the W3C to standardize DRM. Not providing ways for everyone to serve up their content via the web will only accelerate movement to other mediums. I like the idea of the non-agression covenant. But the obvious problem with it is that implementers of EME don't have to sign it. It looks like it only covers those who participate at the W3C. It's a rather strange legal concept, and possibly unenforceable, but I'll leave it at that.
shmerl 11y ago
> My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. The way to deal with them is by not accepting them in return, and only using alternatives. Losing money bites, and they can quickly straighten their crooked ways out of fear for competition. That's the only method that works for curing DRM disease.
tveita 11y ago
> My reasoning there is that those who want to use DRM are not going to accept any alternative that is not DRMd. Of course they will. The big media companies like to posture and pretend they're going to take their ball and go home, but the customers hold all the power in this relationship. It's not like they are going to leave money on the table by sticking to dying platforms out of a religious devotion to DRM, they just think they can have their cake and eat it too by bluffing.
the_ancient 11y ago
>However, by not standardizing, we lock out all sorts of non-mainstream clients form accessing content. Now that Flash is going to disappear entirely, that means no access to all sorts of content on Linux, unless it's standardized. That is simply not true. Flash was on the way out with or with out EME, Chrome and IE was already doing it. With out EME they still would have moved forward with their implementations of Widevine and PlayReady respectively. Netflix would have still switch to it, and Chrome on Linux would have still played Netflix. EME did not result in "Content coming to Linux" and there is no guarantee it will continue. It will be up to the individual CDM makers, in this case google, if they want to continue to include the binary blob on Linux. No different than Flash. If google chooses tomorrow to remove widevine from Chrome on Linux, there goes your Netflix and any future "HTML5 EME" enabled websites Further many other "HTML5" Browsers can not play this content because the binary blob required is not there... making it non-interoperable with any true FOSS gnu/linux operating system. Firefox has to pay Adobe for a CDM Plugin under pressure from their less than idealist users... "HTML5" as a standard should mean anyone implementing the spec is able to see all content built on the spec. Sadly with the inclusion of EME sites like Netflix can claim to be "HTML5" compliant while still preventing every FOSS HTML5 browser from viewing any content. That is not a WIN for Standardization, or a WIN for interoperablity

clock_tower 11y ago

You can't destroy the village to save it? Quite often, especially in the western highlands, South Vietnamese villages were honeycombed with Vietcong tunnels and situated on NVA infiltration routes; if you relocated the people and leveled the village, you really would save the villagers by destroying the village. (Even if you ended up bringing VC infiltrators along in the relocation, at least they'd be cut off from the NVA's regular army and more or less out of communication with Hanoi.) A shame the resettlement program was so grotesquely corrupt... If only the coup against the South Vietnamese civil government had come sooner, we could have won that war. Of course, the EFF would've been on the Communist side; so the analogy works from their perspective.

stcredzero 11y ago

People need to realize that DRM is simply a tool. Absent pernicious laws like the DMCA, forms of DRM are like fences, locks, and cameras. Such tools can be used to oppress people. The same tools could also be used to protect individual's privacy and act as a check on what organizations can do with people's data. Those who control products and infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to set up such tools to grant themselves disproportionate power. However, individuals need to realize that such tools could help protect them as well. (Analogy: Camera phones and police misconduct.)

mikeash 11y ago
What would favorable DRM look like? How could I use it to protect my privacy or limit what organizations can do with my data?
- snuxoll 11y ago
  Look at Active Directory Rights Management Services, prime example.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  To give one practically useful example, the same kinds of technology that could potentially restrict access to content on your own devices could also restrict the use of information in the workplace, preventing the leakage of sensitive personal data due to inside jobs. This is a legitimate and very practical concern for organisations operating in fields like healthcare, finance and defence.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    So for example, my medical records might be DRMd with the keys in my possession, and I could give them to a clinic and give them read rights, but the DRM means they would have a hard time sending that data elsewhere without my permission?
    - Silhouette 11y ago

Silhouette 11y ago

I'm not much of a DRM fan. That said, the W3C has already become borderline irrelevant to the future of the web, as it has been far too slow to standardise everyday technologies that have been widely deployed in browsers for a considerable time. Realistically, actively refusing to cooperate seems unlikely to stop browser developers from implementing new features. It's just going to mean that those features work differently from one browser to another, and possibly that some browsers or platforms won't offer the features at all. Personally, I'd rather the W3C work within the bounds of reality as a moderating influence than have it become a mere talking shop with no real influence at all.

magicmu 11y ago
"...the W3C has already become borderline irrelevant to the future of the web, as it has been far too slow to standardise everyday technologies that have been widely deployed in browsers for a considerable time" This is a bold statement, but one that I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with. I suppose now it's a matter of figuring out what should replace the W3C; things are only going to move faster.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  It is a bold statement, true, but I stand by it. A decade ago, if I wanted to look up how something in say HTML or CSS worked, I'd probably go straight to the W3C site and just read the spec. Today, my first ports of call are places like MDN, caniuse.com, or sometimes places like the Babel documentation or kangax's ES6 compatibility table. I can't remember the last time I read anything on the W3C site. I do find myself there now and then, but sadly, it is simply irrelevant to most of my daily web development work. What matters in a world with ever-moving goalposts is what browsers can actually do right now, which today basically means which of the evergreen browsers have support currently, which of their LTS releases also have support, and what the situation with IE and possibly older mobile browsers is, as validated by actual testing in each case. I really wish this weren't the case, because the lack of standardisation and vast numbers of browser idiosyncrasies makes development much more onerous and less reliable than it should be. But the W3C just couldn't keep up, and for now the browser developers seem to be mostly ignoring it as a result.

pornel 11y ago

This spec (W3C EME[1]) has been introduced and heavily lobbied by Google and Netflix. Regardless of what W3C decides, Chrome won't drop Netflix support, and Netflix for now seems to be hell-bent on having total legal control over which devices are allowed to play their content. [1] https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/ https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/

guelo 11y ago

Am I understanding this right that the idea is that if a member of W3C sues anybody for reverse engineering their DRM then they get kicked out of W3C? I wonder how much of a deterrent that is. W3C needs Google/Microsoft/Apple more than they need W3C. The content producers aren't even members of W3C I don't think. I guess it would be companies that create the encryption plugins like Adobe that could theoretically sue people under the DMCA. I just don't see how the W3C could even function without the biggest players at the table.

ascorbic 11y ago
No, the idea is that they have to sign a legally binding covenant beforehand, agreeing to not sue. If not then their DRM doesn't get into the standard in the first place.
- takeda 11y ago
  Yes, so what the repercussion is when they break that contract?
  - manicdee 11y ago
    They will be asked to cross their heart and hope to die at the next opportunity to corrupt the open standard.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    They lose their court case. I'd imagine it's a pretty simple defence against a patent suit if you can present a covenant by the patent holder saying they won't sue.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

chris_wot 11y ago

I don't expect Tim Berners-Lee to agree to this, given he was the one who championed DRM at W3C in the first place. Also, I don't expect Mozilla to do anything useful, given they went along with it so easily. But then, I haven't expected anything much of Mozilla in a long while.

gsnedders 11y ago
> I don't expect Tim Berners-Lee to agree to this, given he was the one who championed DRM at W3C in the first place. The W3C is in a somewhat awkward place, really. To some degree, the W3C is beholden to its member organisations, and if they want to do something it frequently happens. That said, it's easier to refuse to work on something than to work on something the majority of members don't want (HTML comes to mind there!). > Also, I don't expect Mozilla to do anything useful, given they went along with it so easily. But then, I haven't expected anything much of Mozilla in a long while. I think people vastly overestimate how much influence Mozilla actually has. Look at how long Mozilla held out against H.264, and all that did was cause them to lose marketshare (because plenty of HTML video simply wouldn't play in Firefox) with no affect on the web as a platform.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Sort of makes me wonder about why people give money to Mozilla if they have such little influence.
  - acdha 11y ago
    Mozilla has influence, not control. That doesn't mean they're not valuable for keeping things from being even more skewed by e.g. being the only non-DRM vendor in the room. The HTML5 video situation is a bit complicated, too, as H.264 was simply better across the board: standardization, quality, speed, tooling, hardware support, etc. There was only one reason to choose WebM and that was the belief that it might not be covered by patents, which mote optimistism than something you could be rely on. That point really needs to be fought in the next generation or two where you aren't waiting until the contest is over before getting started.

dendory 11y ago

I think the security aspect is the best option. If a CEO can't access some proprietary web app and is told "You need to use browser X that supports DRM", then they will be "Why isn't that already installed on my system". But if they are told "The web app uses hidden code that may be insecure, and cannot be audited" then you'll have executives, people in actual power positions, say "Get that stuff off our network".

bitwize 11y ago

Either the Web will adopt DRM or the Web will be considered extremely suspect as a distribution medium. Similarly, either you will accept backdoored encryption or you will be automatically considered a terrorist and singled out for LE scrutiny.