6 ms·
Writing a technical article about the standards process around web DRM without even obliquely addressing any of the criticism of it seems like a strange choice
by apendleton 14y ago
Writing a technical article about the standards process around web DRM without even obliquely addressing any of the criticism of it seems like a strange choice to me. Almost everything in this article was already publicly known; what I'd like to have seen was an actual rebuttal of the criticisms of, among others, Ian Hickson, so as to move the standards conversation forward.
- duaneb 14y agoI don't think it's in their interest to even acknowledge there's an issue.
- apendleton 14y agoProbably not, but then why say anything at all? The omission is conspicuous.
- laumars 14y agoCompanies like Netflix are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They'd sooner do away with DRM as it adds significant cost and complexity yet only serves to inconvenience their users. However they're forced into using DRM by the content owners who argue that such measure are required to protect their content. This is why their position on DRM is often left unspoken, they can't publicly discredit because they need the studios on their side. But equally it's hard to address the criticisms if they also agree with such criticisms. So it's easier to just avoid being drawn into the argument to begin with.
- DrJokepu 14y agoIf what you say is true, since they have started producing their own content (House of Cards), maybe they could experimentally distribute those shows (or at least some episodes) without DRM and use the results as a proof to convince studios that DRM is unnecessary and pointless.
- threedaymonk 14y agoThe experiment's already been done. House of Cards was only released with web DRM, and yet it was available via the usual unauthorised channels almost immediately. Even when no non-DRM alternatives are available, DRM is still useless in preventing dissemination.
- hysan 14y agoMaybe I'm misreading this but isn't DrJokepu saying to release the show without DRM, not with? If > House of Cards was only released with web DRM then how has the experiment been performed? Or did you mean to say the show was released without web DRM?
- threedaymonk 14y agoOK, the experiment isn't exactly the same, but it tests the same hypothesis: that the presence of DRM does not affect the dissemination of the content. In fact, I'm not sure that performing DrJokepu's experiment as stated would prove anything: releasing episodes of HoC without DRM would have little effect, as they have been copied despite not having been made available without DRM.
- DrJokepu 14y agoMy idea was that if it can be shown that piracy levels are about the same with and without DRM an argument could be made that perhaps investing in DRM is a waste of time and money.
- fryguy 14y agoIt also sort of depends on the scale of copying. Having easily available "download movie from netflix" versus "download movie from shady piracy website". Obviously, the analog hole is always there, so there will always be that vulnerability.
- stormbrew 14y agoAre you under the impression that anyone had ever in the history of anything proposed the hypothesis that lack of DRM defeats piracy? The hypothesis is that it does just as good (really bad) job of preventing it while encumbering legitimate customers less.
- mbreese 14y agoWhy should they address criticisms of DRM? They've already decided that they need DRM (or rather, their contracts require it). So, why should they spend the time debating the same things over and over again? From their perspective, the DRM question isn't if, it's how. So, that's what their article is about.
- apendleton 14y agoBut they talk about the "how" (the EME) as a done deal, when they don't seem to be, given Mozilla's opposition; more people will have to be convinced for this to actually work. Besides, everyone knows their proposed "how" already. A blog post that just says want to move to HTML5 delivery using this set of extensions they've already publicly supported for this purpose doesn't add much to the discussion.
- jonny_eh 14y agoThey need DRM due to the reality of their relationship with Hollywood. There's nothing to debate. Either they get DRM support in HTML5 and switch to it, or they continue to use plugins and apps.
- GhotiFish 14y agoI don't see a problem with that. No DRM in HTML5. People are demanding less horrible web standards (flash must die!), and we watch the tension build until something catastrophically breaks. Something HAS to break. Aren't you willing to play chicken? I am.
- fungi 14y agoThey are a single company operating in a single market... they don't offer to sell me any product and i have no interest in what they have... i and people like me make up the vast vast vast majority of the the internets population. So we don't even get an opportunity to play chicken... google and netflix will break the net and shove this shit down our throat regardless. Why should we the vast majority of the Internet give a shit about their precious hollywood contracts?
- dthunt 14y agoI am willing to play chicken. Flash must die, and more than that, the standards should make no additional allowances for broken behavior, such as allowing websites to discriminate between Platform A and Platform B. In practice, as long as Javascript remains in its present form, they will be able to effect this sort of discrimination, but the W3C doesn't need to actively promote brokenness.
- pornel 14y agoThey have not moved away from plugins, they merely replaced 3rd party plugin with their own. Their HTML5 solution relies on their own closed browser-specific plug-in (EME CDM) and browser vendors that don't have Netflix's license are unable (both technically and legally in US) to use it. So they continue to use plugin that runs their native code. The only change is that they've taken away leverage that NPAPI gave Microsoft and browser vendors.