4 ms·

Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the conte

Honestly, I'm not against online/streaming content being protected with DRM. I don't think it's very effective but it doesn't effect me as I don't own the content so I don't really care. This seems to be a step to far though. The browser should be a standards based 'viewer' that anyone with the will and the time can create. Let's say Netflix implements this DRM. They account for more than a third of internet traffic. If your browser can't support Netflix it's dead in the water. This is open to so much abuse. The gatekeepers (it seems to be the entertainment companies in this case) get to choose which browsers live and die. As we've seen over the last 20 years competition in the browser space is very important - without Mozilla stepping up and competing with IE I can't imagine the sorry state the internet would be in today. Edit: Once again, the DMCA rears it's ugly head. Time and again it seems to be the thing that is abused to screw over consumers. Maybe that's what we should actually be fighting against.

kevincox 10y ago
I don't have any problems with the concept of DRM (controlling how a movie is used) but I have major issues with what is required to implement it. Essentially by definition you need to run some code that the user doesn't control on their computer. How Firefox does it isn't that bad because it is fairly well sandboxed but over time the urge will be to push it further up the stack so that gaining access to the content becomes more and more difficult. I suspect give enough time they will push until they close the Analog Loophole.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- astrobe_ 10y ago
  It seems to me that the implementation issue is just a symptom of a deeper problem: copyright and DRM by definition grants a monopoly. This monopoly can be abused. For instance, if you want to watch movie X and it is distributed in such a way that you have to give private data, your options are not to watch it or get a "non official" version. Could the copyright law be extend in order to prevent its abuse and protect the consumers, for instance by using the concept of "abusive clause" [0]? [0] http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause
Klathmon 10y ago
But the idea with EME was to create a standard interface to those CDMs. That way the entertainment companies can't be gatekeepers, as the CDM will work in any browser that implements EME, even your own that you made from scratch.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  I'm not 100% clear on the technical side of this but according to the article, in order to implement the 'standard' you require permission from the entertainment companies as they control the CDM. So they're the gatekeepers. Is this incorrect?
  - jflatow 10y ago
    Yes I think it works like this: publisher decides CDM, and EME describes a standard interface for all CDMs. The trick, which EFF points out, is that CDMs are allowed to be blackboxes, and publishers can create their own and distribute them any way they see fit, which effectively lets them determine which browsers may consume their content.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      But no matter what they can decide that already... User agent checking (and other fingerprint checking systems), custom plugins which are required, or even going around the browser entirely and requiring a downloadable program or app to playback. If the standard doesn't have EME, then alternatives will be made which will be much worse. EME is the best possible outcome in a world where DRM exists, and I would be just as happy as everyone else here if DRM was gone entirely, that just isn't going to happen any time soon.
      - jflatow 10y ago
        Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the CDM a blackbox, e.g. just by issuing license keys and standardizing the encryption/decryption of content. It seems like the only benefit to making CDMs blackboxes is that it gives publishers more control over the user's environment.
arca_vorago 10y ago
Edit: Once again, the DMCA rears it's ugly head. Time and again it seems to be the thing that is abused to screw over consumers. Maybe that's what we should actually be fighting against. We should have prevented it in the first place, but given recent quasi-legal expansions centered around legal vagaries of it, I would completely agree we need to revamp and revisit laws relating to computing.

kevincox 10y ago

I don't have any problems with the concept of DRM (controlling how a movie is used) but I have major issues with what is required to implement it. Essentially by definition you need to run some code that the user doesn't control on their computer. How Firefox does it isn't that bad because it is fairly well sandboxed but over time the urge will be to push it further up the stack so that gaining access to the content becomes more and more difficult. I suspect give enough time they will push until they close the Analog Loophole.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
astrobe_ 10y ago
It seems to me that the implementation issue is just a symptom of a deeper problem: copyright and DRM by definition grants a monopoly. This monopoly can be abused. For instance, if you want to watch movie X and it is distributed in such a way that you have to give private data, your options are not to watch it or get a "non official" version. Could the copyright law be extend in order to prevent its abuse and protect the consumers, for instance by using the concept of "abusive clause" [0]? [0] http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause http://en.wikimediation.org/index.php?title=Abusive_clause

Klathmon 10y ago

But the idea with EME was to create a standard interface to those CDMs. That way the entertainment companies can't be gatekeepers, as the CDM will work in any browser that implements EME, even your own that you made from scratch.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
I'm not 100% clear on the technical side of this but according to the article, in order to implement the 'standard' you require permission from the entertainment companies as they control the CDM. So they're the gatekeepers. Is this incorrect?
- jflatow 10y ago
  Yes I think it works like this: publisher decides CDM, and EME describes a standard interface for all CDMs. The trick, which EFF points out, is that CDMs are allowed to be blackboxes, and publishers can create their own and distribute them any way they see fit, which effectively lets them determine which browsers may consume their content.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    But no matter what they can decide that already... User agent checking (and other fingerprint checking systems), custom plugins which are required, or even going around the browser entirely and requiring a downloadable program or app to playback. If the standard doesn't have EME, then alternatives will be made which will be much worse. EME is the best possible outcome in a world where DRM exists, and I would be just as happy as everyone else here if DRM was gone entirely, that just isn't going to happen any time soon.
    - jflatow 10y ago
      Well, historically all those mechanisms have been problems for the open web. To me, the question is why you couldn't achieve the same thing without making the CDM a blackbox, e.g. just by issuing license keys and standardizing the encryption/decryption of content. It seems like the only benefit to making CDMs blackboxes is that it gives publishers more control over the user's environment.

arca_vorago 10y ago

Edit: Once again, the DMCA rears it's ugly head. Time and again it seems to be the thing that is abused to screw over consumers. Maybe that's what we should actually be fighting against. We should have prevented it in the first place, but given recent quasi-legal expansions centered around legal vagaries of it, I would completely agree we need to revamp and revisit laws relating to computing.