7 ms·

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. Really, all you'll do by resisting this, is teach the majority of consumers who don't know any better that the Web sucks, and all of the enjoyable things they want are to be found on iOS or other proprietary locked down distribution platforms. That if you want apps that deliver the stuff you are interested in, you have to look outside the web. Back when Chrome proposed dropping H264 support, I was infuriated, even though I fully support WebM as the mandatory to implement codec. I don't think "purity" really serves the platform, flexibility does, and the best way to register you don't like DRM is to simply stop consuming any and all media which uses it. Not just Web media, but all media that's DRMed. A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser.

nitrogen 14y ago
Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. In this case, forget consumers. Once in a while, something is more important than appeasing the masses. A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. Neither is a DRM-infested spec. Instead, you have uninformed consumers Googling for "how can I watch Game of Thrones Season 2 Episode 3 online for free", getting infested with malware, but still watching the show for free.
- cromwellian 14y ago
  So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? The perfect is the enemy of the good.
  - yew 14y ago
    'The perfect is the enemy of the good' is the enemy of the good.
  - holri 14y ago
    The type of content that would be siloed behind DRM does not fit in a free peer to peer network of equitable peers anyway. TV is probably a better medium for that. The Web is not a one way irrigation medium. It is about freedom. DRM is the opposite of that. Freedom is more important than money.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? You're talking nonsense. The web is just the dominant way of accessing "app clouds" on today's internet. Users don't care whether the code running on their device is Java vs. Javascript if the end result is the same. All you're promoting with "put DRM in HTML" is for all the horrific things you dislike about native apps to be allowed to infect the web. You're fighting the wrong battle. It's not "make sure the web wins over native apps" -- it's "make sure open wins over corporate oligarchy." DRM is the opposite of open. We should not allow DRM to be in HTML. We should not allow it to be in operating systems. We should not allow it to be anywhere -- content providers who claim they won't sell their content without DRM are just lying. Make their choice "no DRM or no distribution method" and they'll pick no DRM.
kevingadd 14y ago
Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hooks or tailor-made plugin APIs. Big Media is no more deserving of special treatment or protection than any of the other industries that want to build apps on the web, and the idea of dedicating time and resources to babysitting a dying industry when there are REAL PROBLEMS that could be solved instead is ridiculous. The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work, and DRM especially doesn't work without the aid of special kernel/software hooks like the Windows PMP and OS X's anti-debugging protections. This is why they're so desperate to get DRM baked into the HTML5 spec and baked into browsers. The reality is though, adding DRM to browsers produces no value for anyone other than the lazy big media companies that can't adapt to the modern world. It doesn't produce value for consumers, it doesn't produce value for developers outside of big media, and it doesn't produce value for the people who actually produce video and audio content. All it does is enrich IP lawyers and executives. Furthermore, the idea that lacking DRM somehow makes the web 'suck' is preposterous. Do you know anything about the web? If the web sucks that's entirely separate from whether or not it can play encrypted video. If it sucks, it's because browsers are full of security problems, websites are poorly designed and poorly engineered, web accessibility for the disabled is poor, web performance is miserable in many markets, and ISPs like Comcast continually abuse their monopoly status to overcharge and under-deliver. Encrypted video is so far from a real-world concern or priority for ordinary people that suggesting it's somehow NECESSARY for the web to not suck makes you look absolutely raving insane.
- cromwellian 14y ago
  I didn't say the Web sucks, I said consumers will perceive that the Web sucks if they can't find the experiences they want there. I've been on the Web since Tim Berners-Lee announced the first web page, I'm rpetty sure I know stuff about it.
  - anoncow 14y ago
ajross 14y ago
No, but at least it won't be polluted by technically ineffective and poorly justified nonsense put there to assuage the fears of a handful of ignorant content executives. It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. I'm not asking for a DRM-free world, but I still hold out hope that if we continue to push back forcefully enough we might at least get rid of some of the abject nonsense being inflicted on us. Seriously (and without getting into any details), look at the middleware layers of a consumer OS some day to see all the spots where DRM has its greasy fingers. Must it be in HTML too?
- sillysaurus 14y ago
  It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. Steam's DRM is why I've bought more games than I've pirated. iTunes DRM was why I've bought more songs than I would've pirated. They were both more convenient than pirating the content. Is a distribution channel a form of DRM?
  - shmerl 14y ago
    Steam is still DRMed, in regards to the installers and for major part of the games even requiring Steam client to run them. GOG in contrast isn't, that's why I use GOG and other DRM free distributors, but not Steam.
    - gordaco 14y ago
      I've spent literally about 20 times more money on GOG than Steam, for this very same reason. And although I haven't actually found myself in that situation, I'm willing to pay a little more if that grants me absence of DRM.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Steam and iTunes are what are convenient. DRM certainly doesn't make them so (and in fact the latter has mostly abandoned it). And in any case both of those implement a very "weak" form of DRM in the app itself. What we're talking about here are hooks for "platform DRM" which is much, much more invasive. Nothing in Steam prevents you from copying files once installed, or even attaching a debugger and reading out game code and content. This will.
azakai 14y ago
> The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. At least a compiled-to-JS codec or encryption module would be JS, so it would run on the web everywhere. Unlike Flash, Silverlight, and also the EME stuff as mentioned in the article, all of which require proprietary code, and so will only run in some browsers and some platforms.
ndesaulniers 14y ago
Then they shouldn't be surprised when their content gets pirated. They themselves are to blame for making access to their content more difficult. I bet netflix would make double if they weren't platform limited by DRM implementations. Most Internet users don't care where their browser vendor leads them. Like you said, consumers are sheep.
shmerl 14y ago
>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!
- cromwellian 14y ago
  What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    >What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. Again, what's wrong with that? DRM shouldn't even belong anywhere to begin with. Now suddenly one needs to worry that DRM mechanisms imply security risks because of some native plugins? DRM is insecure and malware/spyware prone by its own definition! You can't have a "healthy" DRM. So there is completely no point to worry about a minor sickness (native plugins), while there is a major one in place (DRM).
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - cromwellian 14y ago
    If people are set on doing bad risky stuff, having a safer way of doing it is a social good. I don't do heroin, but if people are going to do it anyway, I support giving out clean needles for them.
    - shmerl 14y ago
bcoates 14y ago
Consumers don't even care about content. They care about convienence. It trumps everything. Video on the web is convenient enough that you will be able to watch the TV show du jour through it, and if there is no DRM support in browsers it won't be DRMed. Pirates are becoming increasingly professional and Hollywood gets to decide if they will spend their legal advantage on defending incompatibility schemes or making money, unless the browsers help them out with the former. A DRM free HTML5 spec won't have any effect on you being able to watch Game of Thrones on your open source Linux browser aside from maybe giving you an opportunity to pay HBO for it.
holri 14y ago
One should never deal with the bad guys.
anoncow 14y ago
>A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. A DRM laden HTML5 spec will mean "my open source Linux browser" will not be able to support the entire HTML5 spec. This is far more unacceptable to me.
Ygg2 14y ago
Problem is that EMA (aka DRM in browser) will discriminate between open source and proprietary browsers, giving latter a bigger edge (propietary plugins, could in theory be bypassed).
surrealize 14y ago
The web doesn't need DRM any more than broadcast TV needed the broadcast flag. Content producers said that the broadcast flag was necessary, and that without it they wouldn't allow their content to be broadcast. In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against the broadcast flag, the proposal died, and now all kinds of stuff gets broadcast in the clear. When push came to shove, the content producers didn't actually need the broadcast flag, and their business models still work without it just as well as they did before. The same needs to happen with the EME proposal; people who care about this kind of thing need to push back and kill it just like with the broadcast flag.
- gsnedders 14y ago
  And then the content producers will just demand Flash or Silverlight to stream their content, which is the status-quo. It's not really a similar situation.
  - surrealize 14y ago
    Both flash and silverlight are deprecated by their makers. The question is whether they'll go away, it's what will replace them and what specifically it will do. Flash and silverlight lost to an open, interoperably-implementable standard (html). This EME proposal just standardizes an interface to something that's not standard or open (the CDMs). Some people like to say that content producers will never let up on their demands for DRM. But that's happened already in music and with the broadcast flag, and it's starting to happen in book publishing as well. We should keep fighting for it to happen in web video. Everything is available pirated already, but people still pay for netflix & friends because they're convenient and most people are honest. If DRM doesn't make it into HTML, there will still be a viable business model streaming video to paying customers without DRM.
mtgx 14y ago
Then consumers should revolt, because all this really does is limit on how many devices they can play the content on. And I think everyone hates that.
- progrock 14y ago
  Only when they experience the problem first hand! My brother is a novice computer user, he ripped all his CDs into his music library through windows media player as WMA files. I tried explaining that he'd be better off with a 'free' format, but he didn't care, or rather hadn't the need to care. Later he acquired an iPod. Then he was totally baffled as to why he couldn't play his WMA files on his iPod. Anyway he went on to transcode using iTunes all his WMA files to probably M4a files. And has no idea that he has potentially thrown some data down the drain in the process. I'd like to see his face if he then bought a device that couldn't play M4a, but WMA files! Oh for the glory days of picking up a CD and your ghetto blaster and moving it from room to room.
anoncow 14y ago
>Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content Therefore, it is the moral duty of those behind html5 to make sure that interests of consumers are not compromised.

nitrogen 14y ago

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. In this case, forget consumers. Once in a while, something is more important than appeasing the masses. A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. Neither is a DRM-infested spec. Instead, you have uninformed consumers Googling for "how can I watch Game of Thrones Season 2 Episode 3 online for free", getting infested with malware, but still watching the show for free.

cromwellian 14y ago
So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? The perfect is the enemy of the good.
- yew 14y ago
  'The perfect is the enemy of the good' is the enemy of the good.
- holri 14y ago
  The type of content that would be siloed behind DRM does not fit in a free peer to peer network of equitable peers anyway. TV is probably a better medium for that. The Web is not a one way irrigation medium. It is about freedom. DRM is the opposite of that. Freedom is more important than money.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? You're talking nonsense. The web is just the dominant way of accessing "app clouds" on today's internet. Users don't care whether the code running on their device is Java vs. Javascript if the end result is the same. All you're promoting with "put DRM in HTML" is for all the horrific things you dislike about native apps to be allowed to infect the web. You're fighting the wrong battle. It's not "make sure the web wins over native apps" -- it's "make sure open wins over corporate oligarchy." DRM is the opposite of open. We should not allow DRM to be in HTML. We should not allow it to be in operating systems. We should not allow it to be anywhere -- content providers who claim they won't sell their content without DRM are just lying. Make their choice "no DRM or no distribution method" and they'll pick no DRM.

kevingadd 14y ago

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hooks or tailor-made plugin APIs. Big Media is no more deserving of special treatment or protection than any of the other industries that want to build apps on the web, and the idea of dedicating time and resources to babysitting a dying industry when there are REAL PROBLEMS that could be solved instead is ridiculous. The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work, and DRM especially doesn't work without the aid of special kernel/software hooks like the Windows PMP and OS X's anti-debugging protections. This is why they're so desperate to get DRM baked into the HTML5 spec and baked into browsers. The reality is though, adding DRM to browsers produces no value for anyone other than the lazy big media companies that can't adapt to the modern world. It doesn't produce value for consumers, it doesn't produce value for developers outside of big media, and it doesn't produce value for the people who actually produce video and audio content. All it does is enrich IP lawyers and executives. Furthermore, the idea that lacking DRM somehow makes the web 'suck' is preposterous. Do you know anything about the web? If the web sucks that's entirely separate from whether or not it can play encrypted video. If it sucks, it's because browsers are full of security problems, websites are poorly designed and poorly engineered, web accessibility for the disabled is poor, web performance is miserable in many markets, and ISPs like Comcast continually abuse their monopoly status to overcharge and under-deliver. Encrypted video is so far from a real-world concern or priority for ordinary people that suggesting it's somehow NECESSARY for the web to not suck makes you look absolutely raving insane.

cromwellian 14y ago
I didn't say the Web sucks, I said consumers will perceive that the Web sucks if they can't find the experiences they want there. I've been on the Web since Tim Berners-Lee announced the first web page, I'm rpetty sure I know stuff about it.
- anoncow 14y ago

ajross 14y ago

No, but at least it won't be polluted by technically ineffective and poorly justified nonsense put there to assuage the fears of a handful of ignorant content executives. It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. I'm not asking for a DRM-free world, but I still hold out hope that if we continue to push back forcefully enough we might at least get rid of some of the abject nonsense being inflicted on us. Seriously (and without getting into any details), look at the middleware layers of a consumer OS some day to see all the spots where DRM has its greasy fingers. Must it be in HTML too?

sillysaurus 14y ago
It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. Steam's DRM is why I've bought more games than I've pirated. iTunes DRM was why I've bought more songs than I would've pirated. They were both more convenient than pirating the content. Is a distribution channel a form of DRM?
- shmerl 14y ago
  Steam is still DRMed, in regards to the installers and for major part of the games even requiring Steam client to run them. GOG in contrast isn't, that's why I use GOG and other DRM free distributors, but not Steam.
  - gordaco 14y ago
    I've spent literally about 20 times more money on GOG than Steam, for this very same reason. And although I haven't actually found myself in that situation, I'm willing to pay a little more if that grants me absence of DRM.
- ajross 14y ago
  Steam and iTunes are what are convenient. DRM certainly doesn't make them so (and in fact the latter has mostly abandoned it). And in any case both of those implement a very "weak" form of DRM in the app itself. What we're talking about here are hooks for "platform DRM" which is much, much more invasive. Nothing in Steam prevents you from copying files once installed, or even attaching a debugger and reading out game code and content. This will.

azakai 14y ago

> The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. At least a compiled-to-JS codec or encryption module would be JS, so it would run on the web everywhere. Unlike Flash, Silverlight, and also the EME stuff as mentioned in the article, all of which require proprietary code, and so will only run in some browsers and some platforms.

ndesaulniers 14y ago

Then they shouldn't be surprised when their content gets pirated. They themselves are to blame for making access to their content more difficult. I bet netflix would make double if they weren't platform limited by DRM implementations. Most Internet users don't care where their browser vendor leads them. Like you said, consumers are sheep.

shmerl 14y ago

>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!

cromwellian 14y ago
What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.
- shmerl 14y ago
  >What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. Again, what's wrong with that? DRM shouldn't even belong anywhere to begin with. Now suddenly one needs to worry that DRM mechanisms imply security risks because of some native plugins? DRM is insecure and malware/spyware prone by its own definition! You can't have a "healthy" DRM. So there is completely no point to worry about a minor sickness (native plugins), while there is a major one in place (DRM).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- cromwellian 14y ago
  If people are set on doing bad risky stuff, having a safer way of doing it is a social good. I don't do heroin, but if people are going to do it anyway, I support giving out clean needles for them.
  - shmerl 14y ago

bcoates 14y ago

Consumers don't even care about content. They care about convienence. It trumps everything. Video on the web is convenient enough that you will be able to watch the TV show du jour through it, and if there is no DRM support in browsers it won't be DRMed. Pirates are becoming increasingly professional and Hollywood gets to decide if they will spend their legal advantage on defending incompatibility schemes or making money, unless the browsers help them out with the former. A DRM free HTML5 spec won't have any effect on you being able to watch Game of Thrones on your open source Linux browser aside from maybe giving you an opportunity to pay HBO for it.

holri 14y ago

One should never deal with the bad guys.

anoncow 14y ago

>A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. A DRM laden HTML5 spec will mean "my open source Linux browser" will not be able to support the entire HTML5 spec. This is far more unacceptable to me.

Ygg2 14y ago

Problem is that EMA (aka DRM in browser) will discriminate between open source and proprietary browsers, giving latter a bigger edge (propietary plugins, could in theory be bypassed).

surrealize 14y ago

The web doesn't need DRM any more than broadcast TV needed the broadcast flag. Content producers said that the broadcast flag was necessary, and that without it they wouldn't allow their content to be broadcast. In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against the broadcast flag, the proposal died, and now all kinds of stuff gets broadcast in the clear. When push came to shove, the content producers didn't actually need the broadcast flag, and their business models still work without it just as well as they did before. The same needs to happen with the EME proposal; people who care about this kind of thing need to push back and kill it just like with the broadcast flag.

gsnedders 14y ago
And then the content producers will just demand Flash or Silverlight to stream their content, which is the status-quo. It's not really a similar situation.
- surrealize 14y ago
  Both flash and silverlight are deprecated by their makers. The question is whether they'll go away, it's what will replace them and what specifically it will do. Flash and silverlight lost to an open, interoperably-implementable standard (html). This EME proposal just standardizes an interface to something that's not standard or open (the CDMs). Some people like to say that content producers will never let up on their demands for DRM. But that's happened already in music and with the broadcast flag, and it's starting to happen in book publishing as well. We should keep fighting for it to happen in web video. Everything is available pirated already, but people still pay for netflix & friends because they're convenient and most people are honest. If DRM doesn't make it into HTML, there will still be a viable business model streaming video to paying customers without DRM.

mtgx 14y ago

Then consumers should revolt, because all this really does is limit on how many devices they can play the content on. And I think everyone hates that.

progrock 14y ago
Only when they experience the problem first hand! My brother is a novice computer user, he ripped all his CDs into his music library through windows media player as WMA files. I tried explaining that he'd be better off with a 'free' format, but he didn't care, or rather hadn't the need to care. Later he acquired an iPod. Then he was totally baffled as to why he couldn't play his WMA files on his iPod. Anyway he went on to transcode using iTunes all his WMA files to probably M4a files. And has no idea that he has potentially thrown some data down the drain in the process. I'd like to see his face if he then bought a device that couldn't play M4a, but WMA files! Oh for the glory days of picking up a CD and your ghetto blaster and moving it from room to room.

anoncow 14y ago

>Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content Therefore, it is the moral duty of those behind html5 to make sure that interests of consumers are not compromised.