12 ms·

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W

by azakai 10y ago

> [The W3C] needs to hear from you now. Please share this post, and spread the word. Help the W3C be the organization it is meant to be. This isn't about the W3C. This is about EME, and about the companies that created it and promoted it: Google, Microsoft and Netflix (as you can see on the spec, for example https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ ). Telling the W3C not to do DRM is not going to be effective. The only thing that can work is to put direct pressure on the parties behind EME, and their products: Google and Chrome, Microsoft and IE/Edge, and Netflix. Not only is it not effective to focus on the W3C, it's counterproductive - it shifts the blame away from the real culprits just mentioned. If you lobby the W3C against EME but still use products from the companies that created EME, you're sending mixed messages at best. Furthermore, even if somehow we got the W3C to not do EME, it wouldn't matter. Google, Microsoft and Netflix would still be implementing it. They would just find another standards body.

shmerl 10y ago
That goes without saying. I don't think EFF encourages anyone to use DRMed services, quite the opposite.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented. Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased. I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux this week) other people using proprietary software does not much bother me.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).
    - mark_l_watson 10y ago
      I mostly agree with you, and I think we are largely on the same side, but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different. That said, I would be very happy if there were no DRM in the world, and I would just go to the movie theater to see new movies. I was the featured Creative Commoner many years ago, and I appreciate a world where Creative Commons licenses are used and mostly libre software is used, but while I can afford to release a book under CC, which I have done a few times, a movie studio that drops 100M making a film can not use CC.
      - forty 10y ago
        I don't think it's really different. I don't think DRM have ever prevented any content from being freely available on the internet, they merely annoy legitimate users who paid for it (or would have paid for it if the content had been readable on their system)
      - __jal 10y ago
        > but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different Why? Genuine question. DRM doesn't save new movies from piracy - new releases still hit the public torrent sites extremely quickly (sometimes before release). And I don't understand what CC has to do with DRM. One is an intellectual property license, the other is a bucket of suck that categorically cannot work if users are to be allowed control their own machines.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        The problem is that DRM is incompatible with an open computer, and leads us to the situation we are on mobile, where users can't control their computers at all. Content producers have the right to rent their content. They just don't have the right to cripple the entire economy and everybody's infosec doing so.
    - xori 10y ago
      I think mark_l_watson has a point, when it comes to renting or streaming content DRM is the publisher's method of control. It's when I purchase a single player game that is online only that I get angry.
dasil003 10y ago
Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no leverage on rights holders. If the streaming technology isn't available, then the studios will simply choose not to stream it, and whoever builds it first will have a huge market advantage. Fighting EME not only is ineffectual, it harms open web standards by giving legs to completely proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight. The bottom line is that EME is a cleaner solution which compromises in a way that will make open standards more relevant going forward rather than taking an ideological position that will undermine the utility of open standards in the marketplace. Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach. Studios should feel free to build whatever DRM schemes they want, just like the people should be free to circumvent those measures for content they have legally purchased. Copyright law is sufficient to balance individual and studios' rights across a diversity of scenarios with getting a technical quagmire that benefits no one.
- jflatow 10y ago
  I think I agree with you, but the EFF raises some good questions. If content producers have this kind of control, how do you ever create a new browser? And can users really choose their browser if the major publishers have that much control? In other words, if I want to create a new browser, I then have to convince every single publisher whose content I want to display that they should add me to some list of approved providers. This does seem like it's just going to reenforce any initial power dynamics. I'm not sure what a better solution is though.
  - takeda 10y ago
    I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME. It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.
bla2 10y ago
Browsers want to get rid of Flash and other plugins. Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix distributes content, and the content owners aren't willing to have their content distributed. I don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins (which seems like a good change) and assuming that content owners demand DRM (which makes less sense to tech-minded people).
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix didn't use Flash; it used Silverlight. > don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins Or browsers could just collectively get rid of plugins, and the media industry could whine ineffectually at the lack of DRM. They're not going to build their own browser, and people wouldn't use it if they did. Netflix wouldn't go away; millions of people would complain if it stopped working.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    They 100% would "build their own browser" in the form of custom apps. Hell they already do on just about every platform except desktop...
    - cpeterso 10y ago
      Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj3tj https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...
      - wmf 10y ago
        So why corrupt the Web? Why not just tell people to install the app?
        10y ago
anexprogrammer 10y ago
If FF had declined to put EME in the build (as many believed they should) then perhaps some pressure could have been brought to bear. At this stage, I don't think it matters who you email, it's done.
- jgon 10y ago
  Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well. If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight. But as it stands the web dev community has said loud and clear what their priorities are, and this is just a natural consequence of that.
  - Endy 10y ago
    I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.
    - myrryr 10y ago
      Speed mostly.
    - gear54rus 10y ago
      I also use FF in day-to-day both due to privacy concerns and general fitness for my style, but chrome's dev tools are objectively superior, you have to face it...
    - cpeterso 10y ago
      People might be less likely to use Chrome if it was branded as "the DoubleClick browser". :)
    - timlyo 10y ago
      I used to make an effort to use FF, but it gradually got slower, froze up more often, had problems with content I was viewing. The final straw was when they had a big update. Instead of fixing any of these issues, they gave me the ability to call people with service I don't use by clicking a link :/
jcranmer 10y ago
You're slightly wrong. The people you want to put pressure on is not Google, Microsoft, and Netflix--it's people like the MPAA and the RIAA, who are the ones obligating that Netflix do this sort of stuff to get access to the content.
- xyience 10y ago
  This is better, but still not enough. You can only put pressure on all of these parties (and others) by going to the top: change the law. This at least has a better chance at succeeding than telling people to not watch great shows. While I wait for that to happen or not, I'll continue not using Chrome, IE/Edge, or Netflix -- nor buying music or movies except in a form I can copy and distribute and play on local devices with no network and no proprietary or secret bits. EME existing or not doesn't affect me one bit.
ams6110 10y ago
I would guess I'm in a small minority but I don't want my browser to play media. I want to use separate applications for that. The browser can know what I want to launch, and offer to do it, but I don't ever want media to play within a web page.
- ashi 10y ago
  You are not alone. Even ignoring the problems of Flash, most web players are so bad I much prefer to just pass URLs to mpv but ... I don't want them to be better, I want it to be easier to use external programs of my preference.
tehabe 10y ago
I don't even think it is Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It's the media companies and film studios, which demand protection for their valuable products. When Netflix signs a license for a film or show, even its own, this license certainly says that is has to be copy protected, like with Blu-ray discs. I also don't get much of the argument of the EFF. A browser which doesn't support EME can't use sites which require EME, like Netflix. Maybe my English is bad or the text badly written.
RBO2 10y ago
The main question is: who pays to make the standards? W3C's biggest sponsors are corporate companies such as Google or Microsoft. It gives these companies a lot of weight.

by azakai 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago

That goes without saying. I don't think EFF encourages anyone to use DRMed services, quite the opposite.

mark_l_watson 10y ago
I didn't know that. I think that Netflix, Google Play Movies, etc. are the only valid use for DRM: high value content that is rented. Types of DRM that are bad magazines this is just my opinion, are eBooks, music, etc. that are purchased. I donate a few times a year to EFF and FSF. I think there are occasions when DRM is OK, and even though I almost exclusively use Linux laptops (just converted my last Mac to Linux this week) other people using proprietary software does not much bother me.
- shmerl 10y ago
  There is no valid use of DRM. It's always invalid. It's based on its unethical nature (overreaching preemptive policing).
  - mark_l_watson 10y ago
    I mostly agree with you, and I think we are largely on the same side, but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different. That said, I would be very happy if there were no DRM in the world, and I would just go to the movie theater to see new movies. I was the featured Creative Commoner many years ago, and I appreciate a world where Creative Commons licenses are used and mostly libre software is used, but while I can afford to release a book under CC, which I have done a few times, a movie studio that drops 100M making a film can not use CC.
    - forty 10y ago
      I don't think it's really different. I don't think DRM have ever prevented any content from being freely available on the internet, they merely annoy legitimate users who paid for it (or would have paid for it if the content had been readable on their system)
    - __jal 10y ago
      > but the case of renting a newly released movie does to seem different Why? Genuine question. DRM doesn't save new movies from piracy - new releases still hit the public torrent sites extremely quickly (sometimes before release). And I don't understand what CC has to do with DRM. One is an intellectual property license, the other is a bucket of suck that categorically cannot work if users are to be allowed control their own machines.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      The problem is that DRM is incompatible with an open computer, and leads us to the situation we are on mobile, where users can't control their computers at all. Content producers have the right to rent their content. They just don't have the right to cripple the entire economy and everybody's infosec doing so.
  - xori 10y ago
    I think mark_l_watson has a point, when it comes to renting or streaming content DRM is the publisher's method of control. It's when I purchase a single player game that is online only that I get angry.

dasil003 10y ago

Your last sentence is exactly right. Sure DRM is bad, but you can't tell people not to build things a priori like that, and DRM will be built because the content studios demand it, and the studios hold the content which everyone wants. The EFF greatly overestimates the amount of influence browser makers have. No amount of technical pressure will make an ounce of difference, because browser makers have literally no leverage on rights holders. If the streaming technology isn't available, then the studios will simply choose not to stream it, and whoever builds it first will have a huge market advantage. Fighting EME not only is ineffectual, it harms open web standards by giving legs to completely proprietary solutions like Flash and Silverlight. The bottom line is that EME is a cleaner solution which compromises in a way that will make open standards more relevant going forward rather than taking an ideological position that will undermine the utility of open standards in the marketplace. Instead of attempting to fight a self-harming losing battle, I wish the EFF would focus on the real problem which is the DMCA's overreach. Studios should feel free to build whatever DRM schemes they want, just like the people should be free to circumvent those measures for content they have legally purchased. Copyright law is sufficient to balance individual and studios' rights across a diversity of scenarios with getting a technical quagmire that benefits no one.

jflatow 10y ago
I think I agree with you, but the EFF raises some good questions. If content producers have this kind of control, how do you ever create a new browser? And can users really choose their browser if the major publishers have that much control? In other words, if I want to create a new browser, I then have to convince every single publisher whose content I want to display that they should add me to some list of approved providers. This does seem like it's just going to reenforce any initial power dynamics. I'm not sure what a better solution is though.
- takeda 10y ago
  I believe this is also reason why Google, Microsoft, Netflix all support EME. It essentially makes it harder for new competitors to emerge.

bla2 10y ago

Browsers want to get rid of Flash and other plugins. Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix distributes content, and the content owners aren't willing to have their content distributed. I don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins (which seems like a good change) and assuming that content owners demand DRM (which makes less sense to tech-minded people).

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Netflix was the largest site using Flash. Netflix didn't use Flash; it used Silverlight. > don't disagree with what you say, but it's possible to see EME as a pragmatic inevitability, assuming that browsers want to get rid of plugins Or browsers could just collectively get rid of plugins, and the media industry could whine ineffectually at the lack of DRM. They're not going to build their own browser, and people wouldn't use it if they did. Netflix wouldn't go away; millions of people would complain if it stopped working.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  They 100% would "build their own browser" in the form of custom apps. Hell they already do on just about every platform except desktop...
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj3tj https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/netflix/9wzdncrfj...
    - wmf 10y ago
      So why corrupt the Web? Why not just tell people to install the app?
      - 10y ago

anexprogrammer 10y ago

If FF had declined to put EME in the build (as many believed they should) then perhaps some pressure could have been brought to bear. At this stage, I don't think it matters who you email, it's done.

jgon 10y ago
Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well. If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight. But as it stands the web dev community has said loud and clear what their priorities are, and this is just a natural consequence of that.
- Endy 10y ago
  I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.
  - myrryr 10y ago
    Speed mostly.
  - gear54rus 10y ago
    I also use FF in day-to-day both due to privacy concerns and general fitness for my style, but chrome's dev tools are objectively superior, you have to face it...
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    People might be less likely to use Chrome if it was branded as "the DoubleClick browser". :)
  - timlyo 10y ago
    I used to make an effort to use FF, but it gradually got slower, froze up more often, had problems with content I was viewing. The final straw was when they had a big update. Instead of fixing any of these issues, they gave me the ability to call people with service I don't use by clicking a link :/

jcranmer 10y ago

You're slightly wrong. The people you want to put pressure on is not Google, Microsoft, and Netflix--it's people like the MPAA and the RIAA, who are the ones obligating that Netflix do this sort of stuff to get access to the content.

xyience 10y ago
This is better, but still not enough. You can only put pressure on all of these parties (and others) by going to the top: change the law. This at least has a better chance at succeeding than telling people to not watch great shows. While I wait for that to happen or not, I'll continue not using Chrome, IE/Edge, or Netflix -- nor buying music or movies except in a form I can copy and distribute and play on local devices with no network and no proprietary or secret bits. EME existing or not doesn't affect me one bit.

ams6110 10y ago

I would guess I'm in a small minority but I don't want my browser to play media. I want to use separate applications for that. The browser can know what I want to launch, and offer to do it, but I don't ever want media to play within a web page.

ashi 10y ago
You are not alone. Even ignoring the problems of Flash, most web players are so bad I much prefer to just pass URLs to mpv but ... I don't want them to be better, I want it to be easier to use external programs of my preference.

tehabe 10y ago

I don't even think it is Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It's the media companies and film studios, which demand protection for their valuable products. When Netflix signs a license for a film or show, even its own, this license certainly says that is has to be copy protected, like with Blu-ray discs. I also don't get much of the argument of the EFF. A browser which doesn't support EME can't use sites which require EME, like Netflix. Maybe my English is bad or the text badly written.

RBO2 10y ago

The main question is: who pays to make the standards? W3C's biggest sponsors are corporate companies such as Google or Microsoft. It gives these companies a lot of weight.