17 ms·
Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
- deepnet 9y ago“Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me" Orwell, 1984 - A very sad day, a very poor decision: "Today, the W3C announced that it would publish its DRM standard with no protections and no compromises at all, stating that W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee had concluded that the objections raised "had already been addressed" or that they were "overruled." "EFF understood that the W3C had members who wanted to make DRM, so we suggested a compromise: a covenant, modeled on the existing W3C member-agreement, that would require members to make a binding promise only to use the law to attack people who infringed copyright, and to leave people alone if they bypassed DRM for legal reasons, like making W3C-standardized video more accessible for people with disabilities. This was a very popular idea. It was endorsed by Unesco, by the Internet Archive, by the creator of the W3C's existing membership agreement, by hundreds of top security researchers, by the competition expert who coined the term "Net Neutrality", and by hundreds of human rights organizations and activists from the global south. The Open Source Initiative amended its definition of "open standard" so that DRM standards could only qualify as a "open" if they protected legitimate activity. Now, it's fair to say that the W3C's DRM advocates didn't like the idea. After a perfunctory discussion process (during which some progress was made), they walked away from the negotiations, and the W3C decided to allow the standardization work to continue despite their unwillingness to compromise."[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...
- II2II 9y agoEverything that I have read suggests that this is standardizing what has already happened with video, which is a great deal better than the bad old days when companies relied upon Macromedia/Adobe for video streaming. (Or worse, a plug-in from an obscure company with an unknown track record). As much as I would like to avoid DRM, relatively few producers are going to budge on the issue. The only options are standardized DRM, non-standardized extensions to provide DRM, or simply doing without. None of the options are particularly desirable. This one is likely the best of the three.
- __jal 9y agoI disagree. "Doing without" seems the most sensible to me. There is no rule that industries whose business is built on copyright need to be able to live in the browser. Netflix demonstrated that quite nicely. Just because the want it doesn't mean they should get it. I personally cripple EME on my browsers, and if your content won't display for me, I'll happily go elsewhere. (Haven't had the problem yet, but fully expect to.) It is bad enough, but unsurprising, that the closed browsers would go along with user-hostile bullshit like this. That Mozilla did, I find appalling.
- javajosh 9y agoWell, "doing without" is certainly the principled stand. But there is a lot of (almost certain, moderate) pleasure hiding behind one of door #1 (EME) or door #2 (torrent), and it is difficult indeed to go through door #3, (not this pleasure).
- Simon_says 9y agoI fully expect torrenting to be made impossible or obscenely impractical and cumbersome inside the next couple decades. The rightsholders are too politically connected, and the general populace too apathetic and ignorant.
- metajack 9y agoFor doing without to work, all browsers must agree to do without. As soon as one browser ships it and people prefer browsers that can stream Netflix, everyone else must follow suit or wallow in obscurity. Microsoft and Google make CDMs; no one else had a chance in this fight.
- indigochill 9y agoIf I follow, you're implying browsers that hypothetically refused to work with Netflix's DRM would wallow in obscurity. While probably correct since the majority of users do seem to like Netflix, others ignore Netflix and get their media through, shall we say more "obscure" sources. Such an obscure browser would seem to suit their needs just fine. Tor Browser doesn't need to be popular among the masses for those who use it to find lots of value in using it, for example.
- fixermark 9y agoUltimately, the actual standard of the web is the behavior implemented by major browser vendors. Assuming the W3C committee voted down the EME standard, at this late point in the game and with no competing standard to satisfy the use case, what stops Google, Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft from just implementing the standard as-drafted without the W3C's sign-off? At that point, the browsers will be enabling functionality that browsers that don't implement EME support can't enable, media channels can take advantage of EME-supported encryption modules, users will see less functionality in other browsers and therefore have soft incentive to migrate away from other browsers, and it becomes incumbent upon the W3C to either release documentation describing already-existing browser functionality (as they've so often had to do) or be ever-so-slightly inaccurate as an authoritative source for describing web standards.
- asadotzler 9y agoNothing stops them, and in fact each of the major browsers have already implemented EME.
- kibwen 9y agoChrome has been using EME with Netflix since early 2013. This fight was lost years ago.
- bad_user 9y agoThe point of web standards isn't to stop browsers from implementing anything else. Such a viewpoint is naive, that's not what W3C is. Back when IExplorer had a 90% market share, you could have argued that ActiveX needs to be a web standard. But it wasn't considered a standard even if it was a de facto one and now ActiveX is gone. I must be getting old if I'm talking with people that don't remember the browser wars or what web standards are about.
- epistasis 9y agoI've been around since the browser wars, and disagree with your characterization here. Standards don't serve marketshare, they are about interoperability and documentation. A single user-agent technology shouldn't be standardized because that user agent has large marketshare. A tech should be standardized because multiple user agents want to use it, and be interoperable. The ActiveX comparison doesn't make much sense to me.
- mitchty 9y agoI can't wait until this gets used by malware!
- mirimir 9y agoYes, that'll be tasty.
- fixermark 9y agoThat was my first thought when I saw the spec for WebGL. "Oh boy! I'm super excited to be running arbitrary code I downloaded from web sites against an API that was never security-hardened!" Fortunately for me, my fears turned out to be overblown in that specific instance; there were a few security bugs, but they were patched with relative swiftness.
- eridius 9y agoI believe this specific fear is why Safari waited so long before enabling it for everyone (for a long time you had to manually turn it on in the Develop menu).
- wmf 9y agoCan you explain how malware could benefit from EME? Note that EME only applies to video.
- fixermark 9y agoThe reasoning goes that EME is a standard that specifically allows for attaching a closed-source black-box to the browser in a standardized way. This code is not auditable by outside sources, and therefore could be a breeding ground for malware and exploits (standard open-source philosophy that "sunlight is the best disinfectant"---many eyes on open source software minimizes the opportunities for exploitable bugs to hide). We've seen codec software---even open-source codec implementations---used as an attack vector in the past. This reasoning, IMHO, ignores the fact that the user-agent still asks for consent, so the user may choose not to allow anything they can't audit. It's just the "Do you want to allow Flash to play this cool video?" story all over again.
- BlackFly 9y agoIf false DRM initiatives are what it takes to get browsers to implement proper crypto modules, then sign me up. Obviously it can't be used for DRM, I will just capture the frame and redirect it to a codec to re-encode the stream. Alternately, I can just stream it somewhere else. On the other hand a secure place to store keys, free from the reach of plugins and javascript would be nice.
- davexunit 9y agoThis truly is the death of the open web. I hope the appeal is successful. Freedom seems to be losing on all fronts these days.
- evv 9y agoWell this doesn't actually change much in practice. Web browsers have allowed black-box extensions for DRM'd content since the dawn of flash. Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves. The open web is as available today as it ever was, and even more so with blockchain and "dark web" technologies like tor and i2p.
- mirimir 9y ago> Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. Yes, that's the disgusting part. But so it goes. The flesh is weak. Overlay darknets are indeed the only hope for freedom.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Analemma_ 9y ago> Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves. I don't understand these two sentences in conjunction, which is most of why I don't understand all the complaining about this issue. If, as almost everyone admits, the browser vendors are going to ship DRM-enabled playback one way or the other, what difference does it make whether it's in the official spec? The HTML5 spec is just a piece of paper that exists to make web developers' lives easier. I don't understand the need to assign attributes like "purity" to it, especially when (as you yourself said), whether or not the DRM is in the spec changes nothing on the ground.
- bcheung 9y agoWhat's the reason DRM can't be implemented as an open-source solution? Is the closed source just to prevent people from easily accessing the secret key or are there other reasons it needs to be closed source?
- benchaney 9y agoDRM is fundamentally security by obscurity. Being closed source is the only way to maintain obscurity, and thus the illusion of security.
- problems 9y agoYeah, this may change (in a somewhat scary way) with the Intel TXT and SGX extensions as then you'd only be relying on the obscurity of the hardware rather than the software.
- ngneer 9y agoI disagree. Technologically it is possible to build a content protection system without obscurity, using open source software and open source hardware (and suitable cryptographic bootstrapping). That no one chooses to do so is another matter.
- asdfpoiuqwer 9y agoIf you plan on putting a chip in my head that speaks DRM, then yes. Ultimately my screen has to show me the pixels and my speakers have to play the audio.
- kelnos 9y agoSure, and you can point a camera at the display device, but you'll suffer lower quality. And you can also buy some expensive hardware to sit between the HDCP decoder chip and the output to the display panel, and buy some more expensive hardware to deal with the huge volume of raw, uncompressed video that comes out of it. But the content producers are betting that most people won't consider the first option good enough, and will find the second option prohibitively expensive. They're also betting that most people will opt for the convenience of getting it through the browser or mobile device (for a fee) and won't want to deal with getting it from not-so-legit sources. They're comfortable with these tradeoffs, for now, so they're doing what they're doing. They absolutely don't care about the small minority of people who will do anything to get hold of the content unencumbered. They know they can't control that group of people, but they aren't losing sleep over it. Because, for now, that minority is too small to hurt their bottom line. If that changes, I'm sure they'll pursue a new strategy. But for now, they don't need to.
- TheAceOfHearts 9y agoEME is useless garbage. It's one of the first things I disable when I install Firefox. I can't do much, but I boycott any service that uses it.
- eveningcoffee 9y agoI think all people who think that this will end with media only are naive. Next step is DOM.
- problems 9y agoLet's encrypt the DOM in our open source browser... wait what? EME is pretty great for cracking too - they enable rendering with the browser's own video engine, giving you a nice "hook to dump pre-decoded frame here" point.
- the8472 9y agoNot necessarily, the CDM can offload the rendering to protected hardware pipelines instead of the browser's usual video rendering. https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/#media-element-restictions https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/#medi...
- metajack 9y agoThankfully you can't obscure the DOM, but people certainly obscure JS and CSS plenty already. Mostly in the name of shrinking its size, but not always just that. Try to learn how a Google web app works by inspecting the source code sometime.
- emilfihlman 9y agoI don't understand the point of WebDRM. You can't simultaneously give us the content and not give us the content. WebDRM is broken by default and pushing it is just absolutely retarded.
- jandrese 9y agoAs dumb and broken as it is, the state of the world is such that you can't deliver most video without something like it. So the options are: 1. Stick to your guns and keep it out of the standard, free browsers will be unable to play Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, BBC, etc... Propriety plugins that only work on one browser and/or one platform will exist and be annoying and buggy. 2. Give in and allow this braindamage in the standard because it means most browsers will be able to support video streaming from most sites. 3. Convince the MPAA and all of their members and all of the worldwide organizations like it that DRM is bad and that they should stop demanding it. In the realm of what the W3C can accomplish, #2 seems like the least worst solution.
- metajack 9y agoFree browsers can't play Netflix anyway, because EME is just a standardized interface to a proprietary CDM, which one must license from a vendor (Microsoft of Google mostly). What giving in achieved is a reasonable security story around the CDM module as opposed to the free for all of NPAPI plugins. It still totally sucks, but at least hte capabilities of these CDMs are quite limited.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bad_user 9y agoOption 1 is the best because playing DRM content should be Netflix's problem. Why in the world would you want to subsidize Netflix's development? So what if Netflix's DRM plugin would be proprietary and buggy? Heck, that's a window of opportunity for DRM-free competition. By making it a standard it means that we'll never, ever get rid of it. Even if DRM is fundamentally flawed. #2 is in fact the worst solution.
- idibidiart 9y agoThe Web in Chains. The symbolism behind the "inventor" of the web signing on this is sending the wrong message to the young ones (the new generation) that idealism must give way to pragmatism and money interests. Terrible, IMO.
- AndyMcConachie 9y agoI have given money to the FSF for years and will continue to do so as a member. However, I do not support them in this fight. Berners-Lee is doing the right thing here.
- aerovistae 9y agoCan you elaborate on that? Why do you believe this?
- AndyMcConachie 9y agoThe choice we're faced with is either we get some standardized DRM in browsers or we get unstandardized DRM in browsers. That's the choice. I've had email discussions with people at the EFF about this and we basically just had to agree to disagree. Their interpretation of the choice we're making is that we either get DRM in browsers or we get some magical fairy-tale land where DRM suddenly ceases to exist. I don't buy it. Plus, as a Netflix subscriber I don't really mind DRM that much. Feel free to ask away, I'm always willing to talk about this.
- pornel 9y agoW3C takes advantage of the ambiguity of what the EME spec and "standard" DRM is. People unfamiliar with the spec may think it's the end of plug-ins and a spec for a DRM that is somehow open, implementable and cross-browser. It's nothing like it. It's a small JS API that launches the same old, fully closed, proprietary DRM solutions. The NPAPI has been replaced with DMCA-protected interface, and previously separate DRM plug-ins are now called "modules" and shipped with the browser. It's as if Chrome, which ships with Flash bundled-in, created a "HTML Multimedia Extensions" spec with just `navigator.launch("com.adobe.flash")` for launching "Multimedia Modules" (details of which are out of scope of the spec), and hailed it as the end of the non-standard Flash and plug-ins.
- izacus 9y agoNote that part of standard DRM schemes is also "Computer verification" - e.g. that they refuse to work if your PC doesn't have the correct kernel, drivers or software installed. If you need special drivers to fix compatibility, want to customize your Android or do anything but leave your system full untouched and bloated, might be that you'll be prevented from watching online videos.
- jopsen 9y agoTo some extend perhaps... One of the key arguments when Mozilla decided to implement EME was that the crappy-proprietary-code could be sandboxed by firefox to ensure that it doesn't infect a system with malware, spy on users, etc. From a security perspective it's light years better than flash and other crappy plugins.
- syshum 9y agoAnd when they did that, the Content providers responded by saying "Ok then we will only allow you access to low quality content" i.e you can only stream upto 1280x720 resolution on firefox, no 1080 content, and no 4K content.. Today that has low impact, in a few years that situation will be untenable for FF and they will be "forced" to cave once again in order to appease users that do not care about privacy or security
- seltzered_ 9y agoA younger version of myself would be against Web DRM, but these days I wonder if there's a potential for it to help in democratizing distribution among indie content producers. Ideally I'd have some time to piece together an essay, but the major points are: 1) Ted Nelson's vision on how Project Xanadu would have some form of copyright protection / micropayments for authors. 2) Independent content creators that have called it quits. There's tons of examples, but here's one that highlights issues: http://www.tonycomstock.com/2011/09/12/why-i-dont-make-movies-anymore-and-what-i-do-instead/ http://www.tonycomstock.com/2011/09/12/why-i-dont-make-movie... I guess I see a vision where webDRM is an improvement over the walls of 'Apps' where content may not be DRM-free, but at least be linkable/URL-addressable. (Disclaimer: I'm writing this without actually reading into the WebDRM spec, so feel free to criticize)
- mmagin 9y agoHas DRM ever actually stopped piracy?
- seltzered_ 9y agoNo, but maybe we need to look at it from relative numbers. Example: DRM music hasn't stopped music piracy, but better models for the content distribution (i.e. DRM music platforms like spotify, etc.) have demotivated more people from bothering to pirate music.
- bubblethink 9y agoA big problem with piracy is that piracy tech hasn't advanced in 2 decades, whereas the rest of the world has moved on. There are two major challenges. Due to DMCA, anonymity is a major obstacle for which there isn't a good solution yet. TOR, vpns etc. aren't well suited for content distribution. Second, the bittorrent model itself doesn't work very well for streaming.
- mnm1 9y ago"Second, the bittorrent model itself doesn't work very well for streaming." Wrong. It works incredibly well. That's why the anti-piracy companies are all up in arms over things like PopcornTime. All you need are a couple of other people to download from. Hell, there's whole pieces of software whose whole purpose it is to stream torrents and they do it extremely well. Nothing even compares to the video quality, which is the same as if you downloaded the file ahead of time. "TOR, vpns etc. aren't well suited for content distribution." WTF does this mean? You can't distribute content over Tor or VPNs? I only do it every single fucking day without any problems and with ease. "Due to DMCA, anonymity is a major obstacle for which there isn't a good solution yet." The DMCA created anonymity? Whatever, I'm not even going to try to understand this one.
- samsonradu 9y agoCan EME prevent people from doing 30fps screengrabs of their screen and dump all into an mp4 file using FFmpeg or such? As someone else pointed here: > You can't simultaneously give us the content and not give us the content.
- the8472 9y agoThe server can send an encrypted blob to your browser which hands it off to the DRM module which can hand it off to the system's ring -2 PAVP/Trustzone/etc. stuff that only runs signed firmware which passes it encrypted over the PCIe bus to the gfx hardware which passes it encrypted via HDCP2 to the monitor. So in principle fully encrypted paths that can'e be screengrabbed exist. Not all DRM makes use of those components because it excludes users which don't hardware which supports it. But it is there.
- samsonradu 9y agoThanks for the detailed description. > .. which passes it encrypted via HDCP2 to the monitor. And where does the decryption actually takes place? > EDIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content... > In order to make a device that plays HDCP-enabled work, the manufacturer must obtain a license from Intel subsidiary Digital Content Protection LLC, pay an annual fee, and submit to various conditions.[5][6][7] For example, the device cannot be designed to copy; it must "frustrate attempts to defeat the content protection requirements";[7] it must not transmit high definition protected video to non-HDCP receivers; and DVD-Audio works can be played only at CD-audio quality[7] by non-HDCP digital audio outputs (analog audio outputs have no quality limits). This sounds quite far-fetched though. I'm quite sure we're going to see people literally recording their TV screen with a hand-camera soon. How about the case where the hardware doesn't support it. Would screen-grabbing be possible then? Where will the decryption take place in that case?
- kevin_b_er 9y ago> How about the case where the hardware doesn't support it. Would screen-grabbing be possible then? Where will the decryption take place in that case? You don't get the content then. Full stop.
- soapdog 9y agoWhat many people that are on the periphery of this discussion sometimes fail to realize is that DRM is already here and already employed by many companies. The current DRM solutions are basically roll-your-own and each company has their own custom stuff which may or may not be vulnerable to attacks and steal/fingerprint the user thus affecting their privacy. This is the current state of things. The EME/DRM spec is a bit different in which we still have DRM and it still sucks, but this DRM is now running on a sandbox environment and is standardized which makes it much easier to audit and a lot safer to use in terms of privacy for the user. Of course "no DRM" is a better solution than "any DRM", but that is a pointless debate because content distributors are already onboard with DRM and there is no turning them back. The W3C spec is a compromise, a solution that enables those wanting to use DRM to be able to do so while we maintain some method of sandbox, privacy and safety. Running a module in EME/DRM is probably much safer than doing the same thing now with custom browser plugins. As for the discussion of "browser X should not implement it, traitors!!!! Hate you forever!!! Will switch to $MORE_PROPRIETARY_ALTERNATIVE" is also a shortsighted argument in my opinion. If a browser doesn't implement EME/DRM spec, they shut their users out from being able to use many websites that employ DRM and what will happen is that that browser will loose users. If every single browser said "no to DRM" except for a single one, you'd see everyone installing that browser just to be able to play Netflix. No browser can afford to loose millions of users by not implementing the spec. Those users matters. In terms of browser vendor political weight in spec discussions, user count matters. The DRM battle is a lost one because the content producers/distributors already decided to use it. Now, if you're against DRM, instead of complaining about W3C spec'ing it out and browser vendors implementing it. You should stop using DRM content. No one is stopping anyone from preferring non-DRM solutions. For example, I don't like light beer, the existence of light beer sounds wrong for me, so I don't drink it but I don't try to stop others from drinking said watery yellow-ish drink. It is the same thing with DRM, instead of focusing your actions on W3C and browser vendors, focus your effort in content producers/distributors, prefer other solutions, make them ponder if it is worth loosing you.
- syshum 9y ago>>but this DRM is now running on a sandbox environment I see this said many times, and it is highly over rated. while Technically speaking yes it calls for a "sandbox" but the need for "Computer Verification" means the CDM has to have full access to the entire system to verify the evil user is not attempting to capture the output. So the sandbox is not really protecting much unless the operating system itself has the CDM integrated as is the case for Windows. So on windows the CDM might be in a functional sandbox but on linux or any other non-proprietary system it is unlikely the sandbox will protect the user from a bad CDM, and given windows track record for security I would not put much faith in their sandbox either. On the security front I do not believe it has changed much, this idea that the CDM will be more secure seems to be more PR Marketing than actual fact. Further given the refusal of companies to sign onto a Non-Aggression Pledge to protect researchers from DMCA liability it is likely any security issues in the CDM's will go unreported for fear of legal repercussions. >>>Now, if you're against DRM, instead of complaining about W3C spec'ing it out and browser vendors implementing it. You should stop using DRM content. Why can a person not do both? Why does a person that has ethical problems with DRM, and view the actual existence of DRM is a threat to their personal liberty be silenced or told to STFU as you have here? Bad ideas, like DRM, should be continually criticized until they are dead. Vocal opposition as well as monetary boycotts are both valid and should be used to oppose bad ideas like DRM One of the reason people are opposing video DRM so strongly at the w3c level is we fear it will not stop with Video. Images, Ebooks, Fonts even the web pages themselves are all a target for DRM Supporters. There will come a time that the F12 tools will be useless because the entire page itself is being served via a locked down CDM style plugin. This is just the first phase of killing the Open Web in its entirety
- Steeeve 9y agoDRM is a non-starter and is in reality defective by design. Pirates have created markets where there were none and are an important part of every entertainment eco-system. It's been that way since the beginning. This is just another in a long string of bad decisions that attempts to give major distribution channels far more control than they deserve or could ever manage responsibly. If you want to make money in entertainment, the business plan is simple. 1. Get people to like you. 2. Find a way for those people to get you money. You don't need Google, Netflix, Apple, NBC, CBS, ABC, RKO, ClearChannel, or anybody else that inserts themselves between you and your customers. None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them. The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. All of the potential problems are today's reality. A rubber stamp by W3C implementing a tag in the HTML spec and blessing a workflow change nothing. The FSF is stirring up noise without providing links to what it's talking about. I presume it's this: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ The workflow isn't particularly well thought out - it's not significantly different than what RealMedia or Adobe have had put together for a generation. The real downside is the fact that browsers will be further plagued with vague integrations. Those integrations will all carry security ramifications that nobody cares to consider until a major exploit is publicized. The fact that so many people are willing to sacrifice their security for access to a 12 year old lionsgate video is beyond me, but such is the nature of the world we live in. Like I said before though... that is a problem that browsers face today. The new "standard" doesn't change much in reality.
- CharlesW 9y ago> DRM is a non-starter… […] The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. If that's true, for you and for others who share that opinion, what does it matter? > None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them. It's hard to take a position like "digital distributors offer no value" seriously when the paid digital media marketplace was created by said distributors.
- Steeeve 9y ago
- MikeTaylor 9y agoIf the W3C does this, it will be time -- regrettably -- to turn away from that organisation and make a completely new one that exists to serve users of the Web rather than those seeking to monetise it. That Tim Berners-Lee has lent his name to this hijacking is shameful.
- objclxt 9y agoHow do you propose that your new utopian organization actually get its standards implemented by user agents? The only time there has been a half successful splintering off of the W3C was WHATWG, and WHATWG only worked because it was backed by the browser vendors themselves.
- gue5t 9y agoHow are we to deal with the problem that the browser developers are also on the side of monetization?
- mark_l_watson 9y agoI have only had one long conversation with TBL, but he appears at least to me to have his heart in the right place. I met him at the Decentralized Web Conference June 2016. I want two things, at least, from the web: 1. An open platform where I can post content on my own web site, link to other people's web sites, and let them link to my sites. 2. I like to buy access to entertainment: Google Play Music and Movies, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now. Ideally I should be able to have both of theses modes of using the web, and people who don't want DRM should be able to disable DRM and rent Bluray movies, check movies out of their local libraries, etc. There are some producers, like Spiritual Circle Cinema and others, who sell DRM free video. I would like to see everyone get everything they want from the web.
- jancsika 9y agoAnyone know if the EFF plans to throw some of their weight behind this particular appeal?
- frivoal 9y agoI believe they want to, but the appeals process is an untested one, and will be evaluated by the same people who made the original decision. Don't get your hopes too high.
- mehh 9y agoYeah thats fine, freedom of choice and a better experience for users, sounds pragmatic to me. Much better than the many posts here trying to force their opinion on the world!
- shmerl 9y agoThat's a shame. He should know better than to approve this unethical garbage.