6 ms·

That's a bit disheartening. Instead of having a basic standard to start with, we will now have none. The issue that FSF and others appears to have is with the

by wooptoo 10y ago

That's a bit disheartening. Instead of having a basic standard to start with, we will now have none. The issue that FSF and others appears to have is with the Content Decryption Module which is a binary blob at the moment. Standardising/opening up the CDM spec could have been done afterwards. If the W3C were a bit sneakier they could have played a bait-and-switch game on the content providers and push for a standard/opensource CDM at some point. Why couldn't there be an open-source CDM?

cyphar 10y ago
> Why couldn't there be an open-source CDM? You could have an "open source" implementation. But you couldn't have an effective free software implementation, because it wouldn't be possible for it to be an effective DRM measure. If you have free software DRM, what stops a user from removing the DRM components (hint: nothing)?
- wooptoo 10y ago
  > what stops a user from removing the DRM components I think inertia and convenience. Casual users won't hack around trying to rip Netflix when they have already paid for it. Also since services like Netflix are in the cloud they allow for viewing from multiple devices and other benefits (remembering where you left off, etc). Sure, there might be some savvy developers out there that might put out a custom build of Chromium with a stream ripper plugin. But that still means that some users have to pay for content.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I think inertia and convenience. I'm talking about a free software DRM implementation -- where users have been explicitly given the freedom to remove the DRM. Sure, not everyone will modify their copy of Chromium but once a single developer does and creates a fork of it, that's all you need (and that's why freedoms #2 and #3 are so important). The reason I pointed that out is because wishing for a "free software DRM implementation" is a bit silly, because having a free software implementation contradicts the whole purpose of DRM (which is why we should reject DRM as a concept, not barter with DRM proponents about what the licensing of the DRM binary blobs should be).
- DiabloD3 10y ago
  Nothing will EVER stop it. DRM is a scam, nothing more, nothing less. As long as human beings have access to the data that they are (legally) allowed to have access to, unencrypted data will exist and will be pirated. Steam solved the DRM issue eons ago: become the best place to get something, and people will flock to you to get it.
  - gcp 10y ago
    There's still significant pirating of games despite the existence of Steam.
    - wooptoo 10y ago
      I'd say much less than it used to be. Those emails saying "An item from your wishlist is now on sale for $9" is highly effective.
      - gcp 10y ago
        Oh, not arguing Steam is an awesome tool in generating more revenue for the publishers. But it didn't "solve" the DRM problem. It mostly showed that it's a red herring. (Steam itself is also DRM, but AFAIK easily broken so more perfunctory).
        wtetzner 10y ago
        I guess it depends on what the DRM problem really is. If the problem is that companies don't make enough money because of pirating, then Steam did solve the problem, because they make enough money despite pirating.
      - DiabloD3 10y ago
        Now only if I'd get an email for Doom 4, and the price is $15 or less, I'd totally be all over that.
    - antocv 10y ago
      You could add to the first claim "offer a good product and pirating will stop", with "lower economic inequality", so despite Steam being nice and all - pirating exist where its still too expensive to access their games. It would be nice if the pricing of Steam was adapted to the economic conditions of the country - but that then has problems of rich country users would probably find proxies in poor countries. Its just not fair for someone making/having enough cash to buy Steam games with pocket change, while another large group of people have to plan and save for months to get same access, of course they will find other methods.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  You can, however, make the binary blobs smaller than they currently are, and make a larger part of the code path free.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    DRM as a concept is incompatible with free software. Having "a majority of the code path free" is not a meaningful or useful statement -- a piece of software that has proprietary components in it makes the entire piece of software proprietary, especially if removing the proprietary component removes critical features of the software.
belorn 10y ago
What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none. Current DRM just pick their own license and that means many are incompatible. Some is binary blobs, some aren't. Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if there were a standard? There is a limit to what standards can and should do. At some point it will do more harm than good, and that point is basically reached when there is no common ground. DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for drm producers.
- gcp 10y ago
  There's DRM (actually used by someone) that isn't a binary blob? Where?
  - belorn 10y ago
    Some publishers just use flash to manage digital media, and there is free FLOSS version of flash. It is not very effective as copy protection, but drm is not the same as copy protection as Denuvo often points out. If one look outside of the webrowser, there is also tools like tmp-tools, as linux have tpm support for quite a time now.
    - gcp 10y ago
      there is free FLOSS version of flash Without the DRM parts. If they're emulated, they'll be ineffective. I hope it's obvious why? I don't know what tmp-tools are, and Google doesn't turn up anything.
      - belorn 10y ago
        As copy protection they are either ineffective or, to use a security term, broken. Some companies care about that and will not use it, while others will (know several examples, like the Swedish national TV, which has broken copy protection but don't care/mind). This is why such standard would be a poor choice, and having no standard is better when there a well established understanding that a significant portion of implementation will be standard incompatible. EME is bad because a significant portion of website will not work universally on all machines. The current system is better, and all EME is doing is causing is placing the DRM battlegrounds on W3C rather than making innovation for the web. tmp-tools is libraries/tools to talk to TPM's on a linux system. Using them, one can implement concepts like trusted boot, and there were/is a patch to grub for that.
Manishearth 10y ago
Speccing this could never have gotten us an open source implementation. The spec was for the API, the blobs would still be licensed and proprietary. If you have an open source DRM module then the DRM can be circumvented by an open source program, which is sort of against the point of the DRM.

by wooptoo 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

> Why couldn't there be an open-source CDM? You could have an "open source" implementation. But you couldn't have an effective free software implementation, because it wouldn't be possible for it to be an effective DRM measure. If you have free software DRM, what stops a user from removing the DRM components (hint: nothing)?

wooptoo 10y ago
> what stops a user from removing the DRM components I think inertia and convenience. Casual users won't hack around trying to rip Netflix when they have already paid for it. Also since services like Netflix are in the cloud they allow for viewing from multiple devices and other benefits (remembering where you left off, etc). Sure, there might be some savvy developers out there that might put out a custom build of Chromium with a stream ripper plugin. But that still means that some users have to pay for content.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > I think inertia and convenience. I'm talking about a free software DRM implementation -- where users have been explicitly given the freedom to remove the DRM. Sure, not everyone will modify their copy of Chromium but once a single developer does and creates a fork of it, that's all you need (and that's why freedoms #2 and #3 are so important). The reason I pointed that out is because wishing for a "free software DRM implementation" is a bit silly, because having a free software implementation contradicts the whole purpose of DRM (which is why we should reject DRM as a concept, not barter with DRM proponents about what the licensing of the DRM binary blobs should be).
DiabloD3 10y ago
Nothing will EVER stop it. DRM is a scam, nothing more, nothing less. As long as human beings have access to the data that they are (legally) allowed to have access to, unencrypted data will exist and will be pirated. Steam solved the DRM issue eons ago: become the best place to get something, and people will flock to you to get it.
- gcp 10y ago
  There's still significant pirating of games despite the existence of Steam.
  - wooptoo 10y ago
    I'd say much less than it used to be. Those emails saying "An item from your wishlist is now on sale for $9" is highly effective.
    - gcp 10y ago
      Oh, not arguing Steam is an awesome tool in generating more revenue for the publishers. But it didn't "solve" the DRM problem. It mostly showed that it's a red herring. (Steam itself is also DRM, but AFAIK easily broken so more perfunctory).
      - wtetzner 10y ago
        I guess it depends on what the DRM problem really is. If the problem is that companies don't make enough money because of pirating, then Steam did solve the problem, because they make enough money despite pirating.
    - DiabloD3 10y ago
      Now only if I'd get an email for Doom 4, and the price is $15 or less, I'd totally be all over that.
  - antocv 10y ago
    You could add to the first claim "offer a good product and pirating will stop", with "lower economic inequality", so despite Steam being nice and all - pirating exist where its still too expensive to access their games. It would be nice if the pricing of Steam was adapted to the economic conditions of the country - but that then has problems of rich country users would probably find proxies in poor countries. Its just not fair for someone making/having enough cash to buy Steam games with pocket change, while another large group of people have to plan and save for months to get same access, of course they will find other methods.
gsnedders 10y ago
You can, however, make the binary blobs smaller than they currently are, and make a larger part of the code path free.
- cyphar 10y ago
  DRM as a concept is incompatible with free software. Having "a majority of the code path free" is not a meaningful or useful statement -- a piece of software that has proprietary components in it makes the entire piece of software proprietary, especially if removing the proprietary component removes critical features of the software.

belorn 10y ago

What they should do is to create a standard open source license that all DRM must use. Instead, we now have none. Current DRM just pick their own license and that means many are incompatible. Some is binary blobs, some aren't. Wouldn't it be better for everyone involved if there were a standard? There is a limit to what standards can and should do. At some point it will do more harm than good, and that point is basically reached when there is no common ground. DRM is as warmly welcomed in a free software ecosystem as forced open sourcing would be for drm producers.

gcp 10y ago
There's DRM (actually used by someone) that isn't a binary blob? Where?
- belorn 10y ago
  Some publishers just use flash to manage digital media, and there is free FLOSS version of flash. It is not very effective as copy protection, but drm is not the same as copy protection as Denuvo often points out. If one look outside of the webrowser, there is also tools like tmp-tools, as linux have tpm support for quite a time now.
  - gcp 10y ago
    there is free FLOSS version of flash Without the DRM parts. If they're emulated, they'll be ineffective. I hope it's obvious why? I don't know what tmp-tools are, and Google doesn't turn up anything.
    - belorn 10y ago
      As copy protection they are either ineffective or, to use a security term, broken. Some companies care about that and will not use it, while others will (know several examples, like the Swedish national TV, which has broken copy protection but don't care/mind). This is why such standard would be a poor choice, and having no standard is better when there a well established understanding that a significant portion of implementation will be standard incompatible. EME is bad because a significant portion of website will not work universally on all machines. The current system is better, and all EME is doing is causing is placing the DRM battlegrounds on W3C rather than making innovation for the web. tmp-tools is libraries/tools to talk to TPM's on a linux system. Using them, one can implement concepts like trusted boot, and there were/is a patch to grub for that.

Manishearth 10y ago

Speccing this could never have gotten us an open source implementation. The spec was for the API, the blobs would still be licensed and proprietary. If you have an open source DRM module then the DRM can be circumvented by an open source program, which is sort of against the point of the DRM.