6 ms·

Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM ha

by DCKing 9y ago

Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM has been part of content delivery ever since then. It has not ever seem to have decreased in popularity, quite the opposite. The browsers that 99.9% of people use have already implemented this standard for years anyway. It's not obvious to me that this decision changes anything (it seems this is the status quo already) but maybe there's something I'm missing. What's going to change from today to tomorrow because of this decision? Or is the meltdown here just people now realizing that the battle is lost, even though it was lost already a long time ago? One thing I do understand is that this contended decision is a serious break from tradition and apparently a dick move (although I'd need to see some additional sources on that). But that doesn't seem to be the main topic of the discussion in these comments anyway.

zymhan 9y ago
RealPlayer was not a Web Standard like EME is. This decision codifies DRM in Web rendering standards.
- wakamoleguy 9y ago
  If DRM has already existed for years, and the majority of browsers have already accepted EME as a de facto standard by implementing it, wouldn't codifying that standard be positive?
  - camus2 9y ago
    It's like arguing that Flash is a standard because the majority of browsers supported it. DRM isn't the open web and should have nothing to do with the W3C. You want to force DRM onto your users? write a native app.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
xemdetia 9y ago
In recent times pretty much all the DRM vehicles have been canned as native code browser extensions have become 'bad' for malicious code. So the DRM delivery mechanisms like java plugins, flash and so on are being taken out of the web and this standard sticks it back in. I have mixed feelings about this until I really dig into how the interface is supposed to work. So it was almost out as part of the modern web stuff, and it came back the very next day.
justonepost 9y ago
It's just another chip in our ability to own things. It just another way tha makes us more beholden to our digital landlords. This lawyer explains it best: http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-new-feudalism-why-internet-things-marks-660102 http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-...
eof 9y ago
As a follow up, isn't all this DRM for naught? If you send the video and the audio to my computer, I can record it after it's decrypted. What problem does this really solve? I already use netflix/amazon because it's more convenient than torrenting, unless it isn't. Seems the possibility is nil DRM-free versions of DRM content won't be available anyway.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  You're right, content will always be pirated. However, security and rights management is never about definitive solutions. DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people and that's enough for copyright holders. They can focus their resources on the other 1% (unfortunately including poeple with legitimate reasons). I'm not agreeing with this but it's how it is and I don't see that changing. I agree with another commenter that it's been like this for virtually forever and this decision doesn't change much.
  - eof 9y ago
    > DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people Does it though? I mean, there are already non-drm versions available, and have been "forever". Yet 99% of people still choose netflix because it's easier. Even the 1% choose netflix because it is easier. How does restricting the delivery of legitimate/legal content impact the way that people consume illegitimate/illegal content? I also don't see it changing, but it seems like it will have /obviously/ literally zero impact on the availability of pirated content, and how/if people use pirated content.
  - drngdds 9y ago
    >DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people I don't think this is true. You can find illegal streams for many (most? (all?)) TV shows with a quick Google search. It's also pretty common knowledge that TPB and similar torrent sites exist, and you don't have to be in the top 1% of computer users to install a BitTorrent client.
    - always_good 9y ago
      >You can find illegal streams for many (most? (all?)) TV shows with a quick Google search Not in my experience. I couldn't even find a 2016 movie on the top torrent sites last week. If all you watch is Game of Thrones and other globally popular shows, then yeah, I'm sure it's trivial.
colde 9y ago
There will be absolutely no change. All major browsers already implement EME (this includes Edge, IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and a bunch of minor ones). I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary. There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access. I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient. The option of there being no DRM was realistically never on the table, as much as people would've liked it to be.
  - mljoe 9y ago
    I wouldn't say that. If it between having no DRM and having no web presence, I think broadcasters would pick no DRM. DRM really doesn't do very much to protect against piracy. It's just a way for C-level execs to show they are doing something to protect their IP. It's a kind of security theater.
    - ehsankia 9y ago
      I think it's foolish to think that. Right now, if you wanted to share a video from HBO to your friend (assuming you couldn't give your account), what are your options. There's no easy way for you to just give that content to your friend. You'd have to link them to a third-party site hosting the content, which is not the same thing. With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.
      - 9y ago
mcherm 9y ago
We could "solve" the entire ad-blocking "problem" by delivering DRM-protected web pages that cannot be modified by the end consumer, merely viewed. This would also "solve" the "problem" of scraping. All that is needed now is a DRM format that delivers HTML/JavaScript and is implemented by Chrome, Safari, and maybe Edge.
_phaq 9y ago
The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues. Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not. As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text. If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part. Also, just like DRM has done before, it's going to make content inaccessible for those who want to view that content at a later point with different technology, except that this time around it's not just going to be Netflix, it's going to be a good portion of the web. So, yes, DRM has been part of the web for a long time, but how big that part is, is going to dramatically change.
- DCKing 9y ago
  > The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues. "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? > Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not. > As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text. > If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part. I would like to see some evidence for that. From a very brief read of what the EME spec defines, I don't believe this is technically possible in the spec. The spec only applies to 'protect' byte streams sent to audio and video codecs. If it were possible I think we would have seen implementations already since implementations have existed since 2013. I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't need FUD to get that point across.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? There is no FUD here. The W3C should not be involved in standardizing DRM API. If browsers want to implement DRM it is their problems. Everybody dropped the ball here. Mozilla, the W3C ... they could have just said no, that's not our problem, they were too corrupt to do that, they just signed the death of the open web.
pera 9y ago
One great thing about the personal computer revolution and the World Wide Web is that, thanks to its open specs nature, pretty much anything can be part of the Internet. That doesn't mean everything should be part of the standards: EME requires a piece of software called the Content Decryption Module, which is developed for Hollywood by software companies like Microsoft and Adobe, and can not be open source. So basically what the W3C is saying here is that every standard complaint browsers should include a binary blob from a private company. And that is, by the way, what will change from today to tomorrow. This goes completely against the nature of the Internet, and it's also useless (as it will not stop "piracy"). I can't believe the W3C is doing this, it's extremely sad and marks a dangerous precedent.

by DCKing 9y ago

zymhan 9y ago

RealPlayer was not a Web Standard like EME is. This decision codifies DRM in Web rendering standards.

wakamoleguy 9y ago
If DRM has already existed for years, and the majority of browsers have already accepted EME as a de facto standard by implementing it, wouldn't codifying that standard be positive?
- camus2 9y ago
  It's like arguing that Flash is a standard because the majority of browsers supported it. DRM isn't the open web and should have nothing to do with the W3C. You want to force DRM onto your users? write a native app.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

xemdetia 9y ago

In recent times pretty much all the DRM vehicles have been canned as native code browser extensions have become 'bad' for malicious code. So the DRM delivery mechanisms like java plugins, flash and so on are being taken out of the web and this standard sticks it back in. I have mixed feelings about this until I really dig into how the interface is supposed to work. So it was almost out as part of the modern web stuff, and it came back the very next day.

justonepost 9y ago

It's just another chip in our ability to own things. It just another way tha makes us more beholden to our digital landlords. This lawyer explains it best: http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-new-feudalism-why-internet-things-marks-660102 http://www.newsweek.com/silicon-valley-private-property-and-...

eof 9y ago

As a follow up, isn't all this DRM for naught? If you send the video and the audio to my computer, I can record it after it's decrypted. What problem does this really solve? I already use netflix/amazon because it's more convenient than torrenting, unless it isn't. Seems the possibility is nil DRM-free versions of DRM content won't be available anyway.

gtirloni 9y ago
You're right, content will always be pirated. However, security and rights management is never about definitive solutions. DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people and that's enough for copyright holders. They can focus their resources on the other 1% (unfortunately including poeple with legitimate reasons). I'm not agreeing with this but it's how it is and I don't see that changing. I agree with another commenter that it's been like this for virtually forever and this decision doesn't change much.
- eof 9y ago
  > DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people Does it though? I mean, there are already non-drm versions available, and have been "forever". Yet 99% of people still choose netflix because it's easier. Even the 1% choose netflix because it is easier. How does restricting the delivery of legitimate/legal content impact the way that people consume illegitimate/illegal content? I also don't see it changing, but it seems like it will have /obviously/ literally zero impact on the availability of pirated content, and how/if people use pirated content.
- drngdds 9y ago
  >DRM makes it hard for 99% of the people I don't think this is true. You can find illegal streams for many (most? (all?)) TV shows with a quick Google search. It's also pretty common knowledge that TPB and similar torrent sites exist, and you don't have to be in the top 1% of computer users to install a BitTorrent client.
  - always_good 9y ago
    >You can find illegal streams for many (most? (all?)) TV shows with a quick Google search Not in my experience. I couldn't even find a 2016 movie on the top torrent sites last week. If all you watch is Game of Thrones and other globally popular shows, then yeah, I'm sure it's trivial.

colde 9y ago

There will be absolutely no change. All major browsers already implement EME (this includes Edge, IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and a bunch of minor ones). I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary. There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.

ehsankia 9y ago
People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access. I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient. The option of there being no DRM was realistically never on the table, as much as people would've liked it to be.
- mljoe 9y ago
  I wouldn't say that. If it between having no DRM and having no web presence, I think broadcasters would pick no DRM. DRM really doesn't do very much to protect against piracy. It's just a way for C-level execs to show they are doing something to protect their IP. It's a kind of security theater.
  - ehsankia 9y ago
    I think it's foolish to think that. Right now, if you wanted to share a video from HBO to your friend (assuming you couldn't give your account), what are your options. There's no easy way for you to just give that content to your friend. You'd have to link them to a third-party site hosting the content, which is not the same thing. With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.
    - 9y ago

mcherm 9y ago

We could "solve" the entire ad-blocking "problem" by delivering DRM-protected web pages that cannot be modified by the end consumer, merely viewed. This would also "solve" the "problem" of scraping. All that is needed now is a DRM format that delivers HTML/JavaScript and is implemented by Chrome, Safari, and maybe Edge.

_phaq 9y ago

The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues. Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not. As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text. If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part. Also, just like DRM has done before, it's going to make content inaccessible for those who want to view that content at a later point with different technology, except that this time around it's not just going to be Netflix, it's going to be a good portion of the web. So, yes, DRM has been part of the web for a long time, but how big that part is, is going to dramatically change.

DCKing 9y ago
> The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues. "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? > Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not. > As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text. > If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part. I would like to see some evidence for that. From a very brief read of what the EME spec defines, I don't believe this is technically possible in the spec. The spec only applies to 'protect' byte streams sent to audio and video codecs. If it were possible I think we would have seen implementations already since implementations have existed since 2013. I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't need FUD to get that point across.
- camus2 9y ago
  > "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? There is no FUD here. The W3C should not be involved in standardizing DRM API. If browsers want to implement DRM it is their problems. Everybody dropped the ball here. Mozilla, the W3C ... they could have just said no, that's not our problem, they were too corrupt to do that, they just signed the death of the open web.

pera 9y ago

One great thing about the personal computer revolution and the World Wide Web is that, thanks to its open specs nature, pretty much anything can be part of the Internet. That doesn't mean everything should be part of the standards: EME requires a piece of software called the Content Decryption Module, which is developed for Hollywood by software companies like Microsoft and Adobe, and can not be open source. So basically what the W3C is saying here is that every standard complaint browsers should include a binary blob from a private company. And that is, by the way, what will change from today to tomorrow. This goes completely against the nature of the Internet, and it's also useless (as it will not stop "piracy"). I can't believe the W3C is doing this, it's extremely sad and marks a dangerous precedent.