3 ms·

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

by 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.
- jflatow 10y ago
  That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - zanny 10y ago
    The CDM depends on whole-pipe proprietary implementation. You cannot implement, say, a video decoding library that is both open source and prevents the user from rerouting the video output away from HDCP HDMI sinks.
  - nialv7 10y ago
    Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way. Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time. It isn't that it's impossible but there is actually some way to do it. It's just regular unadulterated impossible. So why not give up the charade and publish the source code to the DRM? That can't cause it to be ineffective because it's already ineffective. It's not even a fig leaf, it's just security theater.
      - thomasz 10y ago
        > Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time. They meant that all they can do is delay the inevitable for some time by security-through-obscurity. And yes, the IP holders are perfectly aware of that, but preventing piracy even for a few weeks after release can have a measurable impact on their profits.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        If that argument was supposed to mean anything then DRM would only be required in the first few weeks after release. And it assumes that it currently takes weeks before new content makes it to torrent sites, which is not the case.
        slrz 10y ago
        Years ago, Ian Hickson wrote a perfect analysis of why we have DRM. It's as relevant as ever, and anyone should read it. https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        Now we're getting somewhere. But there are still a couple of problems. The first is that controlling the market for players isn't a legitimate purpose. You can't go to a court or Congress and say "we need DRM so we can monopolize and exercise market power in the market for DVD players and web browsers." It isn't supposed to do that, even if it does. So if the studios won't admit to that as its purpose then the people who want to get rid of DRM can easily win the argument against the lie they claim is its purpose. But if they do admit that its purpose is monopolization they also lose, because in that case it is effective but not legitimate. This is, incidentally, the reason why many suspect the reason we still have DRM has something to do with government corruption. And the second problem is that controlling the market for players doesn't actually do them any good. It is the thing that causes them harm. Making the user experience worse is how you lose customers to piracy (and legitimate competitors). And it gives power to people they don't want it to. If you buy $2000 worth of content on iTunes and the content providers demand that you re-purchase it if you switch platforms, that doesn't get you to re-purchase it, it gets you to not switch platforms. Which gives the platform providers more leverage over the content providers, because now they have captive users. If you're Fox or Paramount, you do not want your position with respect to Apple to be the one software developers have to the App Store. DRM is a footgun. It's the opposite of "commoditize your complements." [1] We should get rid of it. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

by jflatow 10y ago

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.

jflatow 10y ago
That would be consistent, and relates to the main question I have: Why does the CDM need to be a blackbox? Couldn't the decryption be standardized with all proprietary information boiling down to secret license keys?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zanny 10y ago
  The CDM depends on whole-pipe proprietary implementation. You cannot implement, say, a video decoding library that is both open source and prevents the user from rerouting the video output away from HDCP HDMI sinks.
- nialv7 10y ago
  Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Because what they want to achieve is fundamentally impossible, and have to be done in a security-through-obscurity way. Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time. It isn't that it's impossible but there is actually some way to do it. It's just regular unadulterated impossible. So why not give up the charade and publish the source code to the DRM? That can't cause it to be ineffective because it's already ineffective. It's not even a fig leaf, it's just security theater.
    - thomasz 10y ago
      > Which clearly cannot both be true at the same time. They meant that all they can do is delay the inevitable for some time by security-through-obscurity. And yes, the IP holders are perfectly aware of that, but preventing piracy even for a few weeks after release can have a measurable impact on their profits.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        If that argument was supposed to mean anything then DRM would only be required in the first few weeks after release. And it assumes that it currently takes weeks before new content makes it to torrent sites, which is not the case.
        slrz 10y ago
        Years ago, Ian Hickson wrote a perfect analysis of why we have DRM. It's as relevant as ever, and anyone should read it. https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        Now we're getting somewhere. But there are still a couple of problems. The first is that controlling the market for players isn't a legitimate purpose. You can't go to a court or Congress and say "we need DRM so we can monopolize and exercise market power in the market for DVD players and web browsers." It isn't supposed to do that, even if it does. So if the studios won't admit to that as its purpose then the people who want to get rid of DRM can easily win the argument against the lie they claim is its purpose. But if they do admit that its purpose is monopolization they also lose, because in that case it is effective but not legitimate. This is, incidentally, the reason why many suspect the reason we still have DRM has something to do with government corruption. And the second problem is that controlling the market for players doesn't actually do them any good. It is the thing that causes them harm. Making the user experience worse is how you lose customers to piracy (and legitimate competitors). And it gives power to people they don't want it to. If you buy $2000 worth of content on iTunes and the content providers demand that you re-purchase it if you switch platforms, that doesn't get you to re-purchase it, it gets you to not switch platforms. Which gives the platform providers more leverage over the content providers, because now they have captive users. If you're Fox or Paramount, you do not want your position with respect to Apple to be the one software developers have to the App Store. DRM is a footgun. It's the opposite of "commoditize your complements." [1] We should get rid of it. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html