15 ms·

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

361 points by c-oreills 13y ago

roopeshv 13y ago
Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on your website. They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.
- kunai 13y ago
  That's extremely narrow-minded. First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like Firefox or Chromium won't be able to view any sites that push DRM at their will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't only affect web developers, it affects users, and the fact that you can't see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be honest. Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML, CSS, and JavaScript -- have been open, and they should stay open. Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web too, not just the big organizations. And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with recent Google Chrome dev builds.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Maybe that's why is Google Chrome installer more complicated than some rootkits.
- betterunix 13y ago
  This is kind of like saying, "The DVD CSS system is fine! You are not forced to use this DRM when you make a video DVD!" Why should the users be forced to deal with more of this nonsense? The issue is not about websites it is about us. I do not want DRM on my computer, and I do not want to be excluded from the web as a result of that choice.
- josephlord 13y ago
  And equally you can use it even if it isn't in the standard.
- mikeash 13y ago
  They are not making anyone use DRM against their will yet. And then one day there's a government form you have to fill out, or a training video you have to watch, and it's behind some crazy DRM solution that the makers thought would be good to use, which was accepted because it's "standard".
- jongraehl 13y ago
  As long as people link to things that work on their browser, you are wrong.
kunai 13y ago
The only true solution to the problem of DRM is to kill Hollywood. It's unlikely to happen, though. Many others have reiterated on this point, so I'm not going to waste my time iterating yet once more. http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html
- zanny 13y ago
  Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open technology and they flounder into obscurity. They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).
  - alipang 13y ago
    I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as long as government is too large to really care about the little guy. Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as the US government or (to some extent) the EU. Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way to get laws acted in your own best interest.
    - youngerdryas 13y ago
      Having different laws in every state is exactly why most of the world can't watch Netflix. The EU is trying to consolidate things which gives incentives to negotiate contracts. The last thing the EU needs is more Balkanization as companies can't afford to comply with twenty different regulatory schemes.
      - zanny 13y ago
        If the most powerful nation conglomerate in the world has to appease a corporation and negotiate, you are already off the deep end. The world can't get netflix because big studios want to release content where they want when they want, and instant data transmission over great distance impedes that if everyone can watch the latest show in their home country before they had 3 months to buy the box set in stores.
bitwize 13y ago
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.
- kunai 13y ago
  > The Web is going to get DRM one way or another Why should it have to?
- betterunix 13y ago
  "The Web is going to get DRM one way or another." Says who?
- vetinari 13y ago
  And the difference between your two options is exactly what? Except that the first one is blessed by W3G?
- mikeash 13y ago
  I vote for the hard way.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      The DRM proposals required binary blobs too for the actual decryption, so you'd probably be unable to use it on Linux either way.
      - w1ntermute 13y ago
mythz 13y ago
This objection, does a solution not help make.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Sure it does. "Don't" is a perfectly reasonable solution here. It won't satisfy all parties, but not all parties are worth satisfying.
  - mythz 13y ago
    The future of everyone being able to view online video (e.g. Netflix/Hulu/BBC) without a plugin is not getting anywhere closer.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Sure looks like it's getting closer to me. The amount of content I can view without a plugin has absolutely exploded over the past few years. Sure, big Hollywood names aren't in there yet, but it's not like they're the only ones who make videos worth watching.
      - mythz 13y ago
        What you mean by "big Hollywood" the mainstream population refers to as "TV" and "Movies". None of which we're able to watch without a plugin. I do all my TV watching online (95% on Netflix/Hulu), even most of the videos I watch on YouTube require flash, despite being opt-in to using the HTML5 video player.
        mikeash 13y ago
        Your statement was "closer". Even if the video watchable without plugins is only 1% of the total, your statement is still wrong if it was e.g. 0.1% a few years ago. Regarding YouTube, I do most of my YouTubing on iOS devices, and it's very rare to find a video that doesn't work, so the non-plugin support is good. Why it doesn't work in your browser, I couldn't say, but at this point I suspect it's more about your setup than YouTube not supporting it at all.
chris_mahan 13y ago
when I first heard of DRM in HTML5, the first thing that came to mind was that web apps would be encrypted, and that the only interface people would have would be mouse or touch. This would essentially make the web like blue-ray: great for consuming content and playing scripted games, and not-so-great for everyone else. Also, how long before "safe" browsers only allowed drm-encrypted web apps, to "protect consumers"? I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.
- kunai 13y ago
  ...what? That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive. Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    What if netflix released its own browser, perhaps a fork of chromium, and all it could do was go to netflix and other such approved (read: drm-ready) sites that paid a fee to netflix? And what if parents made that the default browser on the device? To protect the kids, of course. Of course.
    - rgovostes 13y ago
      What prevents that with or without DRM in HTML5?
      - chris_mahan 13y ago
        Well, they could say: "Download NetFlixBrowser! The fastest, safest HTML5 Browser on the planet!"
        icebraining 13y ago
        They can already say that.
walid 13y ago
The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both browsers are open source. HTML5 DRM will only stop people from using regular copy/paste. I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.
- ivanca 13y ago
  Yeah, only time will tell us if watching sitcoms on the browser is really worth to lose an open internet. </sarcasm>
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  The issue is that the CDMs with which the sites integrate simply won't be made available on certain platforms. E.g. Netflix isn't available on Linux, and there's no evidence that the availability of EME would change that.
- fafner 13y ago
  That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the EFF is absolutely not over-reacting. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
  - walid 13y ago
    I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company, namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser. This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind. To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?
duncan_bayne 13y ago
I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM implementations in the past have been so aggressive in their usurpation of control that they have qualified as malware; the Sony rootkit is a particularly egregious example of this. DRM actively reduces the trustworthiness and security of all machines on which it is installed. It has to by design: its stated purpose is to restrict the capabilities of a general purpose computer.
- alipang 13y ago
  DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.
  - tolmasky 13y ago
    > DRM allows you to voluntarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. Of course, and I think it is also fair for consumers to voluntarily protest DRM before it is placed on our devices by expressing our concerns, as opposed to afterward when we have to do so by voting with our wallets. I don't think its "my right" to have DRM-less devices, but I think all the criticisms about freedom and security are valid as long as they are meant to appeal to the producers by signaling our desires as consumers (this as opposed to for example suggesting there should be a law against DRM which I would be against). In theory the ideal would be for everyone to be on the same page before these decisions get made.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    > As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist > society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. > Don't like it? Don't use it. I agree, but there's more to it than that. From the W3C site: "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web." ... and ... "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of a capitalist society, to lobby the W3C to refuse the addition of EME. It is inimical to their own stated goals (there are other conflicts too; see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html for details). To be clear, I'm not arguing for the initiation of force. Companies should be free to build their own DRM systems, and others to use or not use them as they choose. But the W3C should have no part of that, and the HTML5 standard should not be crippled by the inclusion of DRM. Another angle to consider is our cultural heritage. More and more of that is moving to the Web; if we tie it up with DRM, bitrot will mean that in a generation or two most of it will be inaccessible.
johnvschmitt 13y ago
Good for EFF. DRM is futile. There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell phone camera among other devices). What we've seen is: A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see illegitimate use grow. B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up & protecting our rights & values in the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them. Meaning: DRM all you want. Make it so that you can ONLY see Game of Thrones if you pay $100,000!!! Great! And, imagine how long it'd take for a copy (lower fidelity, sure) to get in the hands of a larger audience that you can't control, who doesn't like you, who you collect no $ from. Or: Drop DRM, & go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that are EASY & fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make your next content even more appealing & marketable.
- biot 13y ago
  HBO should have a Kickstarter campaign for each episode of Game of Thrones. Donate any amount you want, and if the total funds raised is $75 million (or whatever HBO determines is the expected sales figure of the one episode for the next 25 years), HBO releases the DRM-free episode for free to everyone who wants a copy. If the amount isn't reached, then the episode is never released. Repeat the process for each successive episode in each season.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Netflix uses DRM, and is one of the sponsors of this attempt to add DRM to HTML5.
  - johnvschmitt 13y ago
    Yes, that's a shame. But: Netflix makes it easy & convenient. They are not the bad guy. They are really stuck between a rock & a hard place. (Between old school distributors of content (Hollywood), squeezing them for money to make sure they have no margin), and ISP's (Comcast, AT&T) who are saying, "Hey, Netflix is popular, >50% of bandwidth, so let's shake them down" (net neutrality needs to keep them from doing this). Don't blame Netflix for that DRM behavior. They are the early innovator & they look after their customers. They are just squeezed so badly. If you support net neutrality & ban DRM, you'll see more convenient, customer-friendly companies thrive in that ecosystem. If you don't, you'll see only bad players (DRM+$$$$+inconvenience) playing content you like.
cynicalkane 13y ago
The market problem is that people want to consume expensive art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question to me is whether DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible... or whether it will take over your devices with God-knows-what secret solutions, which is the situation today. I think the W3C standard is problematic (having read it) but represents a small step in the direction that is less wrong. The third option, an imaginary free-information utopia, is directly against the economic will of the people in general.
- jobu 13y ago
  People hate DRM because it gives the content producers too much power, and then they treat consumers like muppets: http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_legitimate_dvd.jpg http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_le... The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get paid, but giving them full control of the pipe will end up harming everyone (producers included).
  - dorian-graph 13y ago
    I see people often saying to vote with your wallet and then go illegally download whatever movie, TV show, videogame or piece of software—which I find kind of funny. Why don't people vote with their time? Don't watch something, for example. I suppose the main thing I find funny is how outrageous people become when something isn't provided which seems trivial to life. I live in Australia where it seems we are one of the nations the pirates the most. People here, and elsewhere, act as if having a TV show is a basic human right and necessity. Who cares if you can't watch a TV show? I think both sides are in the wrong. Another thing with the horse-riders yelling at some large fat cats is that they often pretend to speak for the masses; the non-hackers, -geeks, or whatever labels are necessary to delineate these two groups. They say they would buy everything if it was available in a way that jives with them and postulate that the masses will run out and buy everything.. and maybe they will, but as one of the 'computer guys' when most people ask about how to use torrents and you ask them why they want to know usually they just want to get something without paying for it. This goes back to Napster too. This isn't so much directed at you, jobu, these thoughts just came to mind again after looking at the image you posted. I do agree with what's presented in the image in that it is a horrible user-experience.
bcoates 13y ago
What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying involved in a post-DRM W3C? It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List And start demanding the member organizations to make a public statement as to exactly how far the EME DRM standardization is allowed to advance before they will withdraw from the W3C.
- cmircea 13y ago
  I am not sure of the official position, but I seriously doubt Mozilla will EVER implement this. They've been opposing H.264, which is a lesser evil (patents) than outright DRM.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Opposition is one thing, outright boycott and attacking the legitimacy of the W3C is something else. Frankly I think the latter is necessary.
    - executionhalted 13y ago
      What would happen post-W3C? Would the idea be to start a replacement?
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        It's happened before (WHAT-WG).
  - blinker 13y ago
    They stopped opposing H.264 once they needed it for Firefox OS. I'd expect Mozilla to support the W3C DRM stuff as soon as someone makes Netflix a requirement for their Firefox OS phone. Maybe it won't be Mozilla but someone shipping Firefox OS will do the work. Then Mozilla will feel pressure to take the patch they provide. They're in a difficult position now that they're in the mobile phone OS market.
ancarda 13y ago
Mozilla eventually decided to support H.264 in the <video> tag. Is there any indication they will/will not support HTML 5 DRM?
- blinker 13y ago
  Not supporting it would be bad for Firefox OS. It would mean that platform is locked out from streaming video solutions (ie. Netflix). This would discourage carriers from supporting Firefox OS. On desktop it doesn't matter so much. They have a marketshare to make a difference when they take a stand. However now that they're in the phone market, if no carrier will take Firefox OS due to the streaming video issue then the OS is dead before it really begins.
  - josteink 13y ago
    I think you generalize the absurd US cellular carrier situation on to the world. Most places in the world you have carriers which provides phone services, accessible by a SIM-card, and you have phones, which accepts SIM cards. These are two entirely separate things which you choose entirely at your own bidding. You chose the carrier which provides you with a service matching your needs at a price you are willing to pay. And you use the SIM card they provide in the phone you have chosen entirely separate. In a world like this a carrier doesn't "support" a phone. That would be like my ISP having to "support" my Dell PC, or me having to buy a PC from a limited selection offered by my ISP. It's an absurd position. Most of the world does not work like the completely and fundamentally broken US cellphone market, and generalizing based on that is doomed to reap highly inaccurate results.
    - blinker 13y ago
      I may be generalizing incorrectly but given Mozilla's lack of comment either for or against the W3C DRM initiative I think they're not wanting to jeopardize partner arrangements by saying anything negative. Even if they have no deals requiring DRM, why turn off potential partners with statements that don't need to be made yet. Usually they're publicly all over this sort of thing. I don't see any Mozilla people commenting in this thread about what they think either which is unusual but probably wise. On the other hand I don't see statements from Opera either and they're usually pretty anti this sort of thing. Maybe they're both doing behind the scenes work to scuttle the DRM initiative and don't want to make it public yet.
shmerl 13y ago
The objection is good, but how exactly is the final decision made by W3C? By majority of participants or some other way?
ollysb 13y ago
What exactly is DRM supposed to achieve? For it to work it seems to need to prevent 100% of all opportunities, worldwide, of duplicating copyrighted material. A single copy is all it takes to seed every single pirated copy. I can't see that the sales of DVDs and Blu-rays are going to dry up any time soon and given how easy it is to copy those how does DRM help at all?
- tacticus 13y ago
  It allows you to restrict what products OEMs are allowed to make and sell forcing them to license shit from you.
VonGuard 13y ago
OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix. Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason. Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dicks. They're listening to all sides. Who cares if there's DRM in the spec, anyway? It doesn't mean people have to use it. And we all know it'll be cracked in a matter of SECONDS upon formal implementation.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary plugins. Why should we oblige them and dirty the standard in the process?
  - VonGuard 13y ago
    Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Open standards are a way to ensure no specific company has control over stuff like this.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Bullshit. 1) I am able to gleefully avoid it these days, but in the past flash worked with Linux. Furthermore, all relevant DRM systems work with Apple devices including OSX. Netflix works on Android, and on Google's ChromeOS. 2) Even if it did, who gives a shit? I'd rather have people who absolutely must watch netflix on their laptop do it with windows than have the standard dirtied with this shit. 3) Nothing about this shit being added to the standard will make Netflix work on Linux with open-source browsers anyway. You are high if you think this will allow you to use Netflix on your GNU/Linux box. Netflix already has their shit working with google-chrome, on a Linux kernel, in ChromeOS (Linux, but not "GNUy", for lack of better terminology). They don't allow that to work with regular GNU/Linux because they don't trust the rest of the stack to keep their precious bits secret.
holloway 13y ago
An argument in favour of the W3C policy is that DRM video plugins could be retired but what about all those sites that attempt to prevent right-click|save-as on photos, or on JavaScript, and why wouldn't they use DRM too? The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?
- josteink 13y ago
  The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it? For now it does. But if we let it pass, you better believe that slippery slope we've went into is going to get a whole lot steeper. The open web only has one option: Fighting DRM entirely and fundamentally. We don't need Netflix on the web, and definitely not at the cost of our fabulous, open standards' core values.
byuu 13y ago
For anyone else having problems loading the page, try Google's cached version here : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
dendory 13y ago
When I try to view video content, being told that I am not wanted as a user is more common than not. If I go on Hulu, ABC, NBC, and even many YouTube videos, I am not that the maker of the video did not figure out a profitable enough ad model for my country so I should just go away. This country ban is so common because Flash players make it trivial to do so. If you extend the same to all types of web content, I fear this DRM will be used for far more than just some random Hollywood movies.
josteink 13y ago
This DRM proposition definitely needs all the resistance it can get. We cannot allow DRM into our wonderful, open standards. This is not an option. Not at any price. I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue. Have they issued any statements what so ever? Seeing what amazing things the web have enabled the last few decades, purely by being open, who are we to deny the future the same possibilities by locking it all down now? What sort of short-sighted asshole would propose such a thing? To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither. If this goes through though, what I see others are calling out for is a new consortium. If the W3C is hellbent on forking and fragmenting the web, then lets have it. But let's have it on our terms: By creating a new open web standards consortium.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  "Open standards" are about documenting interfaces in such a way as that any person could develop a compatible implementation, nothing more. There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate. This proposal simply describes a standard protocol for a DRM system to be able to talk to a web browser. If you don't want to use it, simply choose a browser that ships with it disabled or disable it yourself. You're not going to lose access to your favorite sites because of this. The sites that would want to do this are already implementing paywalls or existing DRM systems.
  - josteink 13y ago
    There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate. That's a bogus argument and misses the point completely. That you have closed source systems deployed on the open web is completely OK. That you have closed sourced browsers interpeting markeup is also completely OK. As long as the markup and code produced and published is compliant to the open standards we have all agreed upon. Because then anyone with the specification can interact with that content. That means that anyone, of any size, can sit down and implement a fully valid and compliant web-browser. This latest proposal from W3C means an end to that. Having the HTML specification will not be enough to create software able to render all the content on the web. Your browser will need to be "sanctioned" and "supported" by the DRM-vendors in order to work on the web. New platforms (FirefoxOS, Tizen, etc), new browsers, any new players at all and all open source endeavours are effectively shut out from this new web the W3C is drafting. That is unacceptable. This is a disastrous departure from any former W3C specification and directly in opposition to the W3C's own mission statement. We are only left to guess what sort of corruption has lead to W3C sinking this low. Whatever happened to allow this rot, a new consortium seems like a good way to solve it.
Fuxy 13y ago
I would never use a browser that implements DRM. As the EFF stated DRM is a back box with the intent of taking control from the user so why the hell should i allow it in my computer. If their content is so important to them they can keep it just stay the hell out of my browser. I value my privacy more then i covet their content.
nileshtrivedi 13y ago
This is sort of like Linux kernel supporting a fixed ABI for binary modules. There are those who say that it's a good thing and benefits are more than the costs. And then there are those who say that this would be bad and it prevents us from going through a temporary struggle that would eventually lead to a better solution for the long-term. I tend to favor the second camp. Let's not compromise on our vision for the open web. We have gone through a lot and have achieved a lot. A short-term hassle is acceptable for the long-term win. Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we tolerate the intolerant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
JonoW 13y ago
I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives. If EME is rejected and not added to the HTML spec, lets consider some alternatives: 1. Leave things as they are, so Flash and Silverlight limp along to serve DRMed content, and native apps are required to watch on devices which don't support plugins. Verdict: Not great, but hey it's how it is now. 2. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable 3. Lobby the media distributers (Netflix etc) to boycott media owners who won't drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable 4. Ask end-users to boycott purchase of un-DRMed content (and no pirate it, as they will only encourage the media owners to use more DRM). Verdict: Highly improbable. Us nerds may do it, but regular folk don't really care about DRM. 5. EME is implemented as a convention, but not in the official spec. Verdict: Possible, I think EME will be implemented in IE and Chrome with or without it being in the spec. Mozilla wouldn't I presume. Can anyone think of any others?
- Daiz 13y ago
  We leave things as they are. If content distributors refuse to play without DRM, let them stick to inconvenient existing plugins. The DRM-insisting gatekeepers will ultimately need the web more than the web needs them, so they'll have to concede eventually, even if it takes a good while before it happens.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Why do they need the web? If the only way to watch Game of Thrones is to install a standalone application then people will simply install the standalone application.
    - JonoW 13y ago
      I think this is the crux of the issue - should the web be a general purpose platform? Or do we draw a line somewhere and say some tasks, like watching protected video isn't something it should be doing. Personally I think all video consumption is a good fit for the web, it's seem awkward to split protected and unprotected video.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
crististm 13y ago
Twenty years ago, at the rise of Internet, DRM would have been unconceivable. How come we're here now?

361 points by c-oreills 13y ago

Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on your website. They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.

kunai 13y ago
That's extremely narrow-minded. First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like Firefox or Chromium won't be able to view any sites that push DRM at their will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't only affect web developers, it affects users, and the fact that you can't see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be honest. Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML, CSS, and JavaScript -- have been open, and they should stay open. Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web too, not just the big organizations. And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with recent Google Chrome dev builds.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Maybe that's why is Google Chrome installer more complicated than some rootkits.
betterunix 13y ago
This is kind of like saying, "The DVD CSS system is fine! You are not forced to use this DRM when you make a video DVD!" Why should the users be forced to deal with more of this nonsense? The issue is not about websites it is about us. I do not want DRM on my computer, and I do not want to be excluded from the web as a result of that choice.
josephlord 13y ago
And equally you can use it even if it isn't in the standard.
mikeash 13y ago
They are not making anyone use DRM against their will yet. And then one day there's a government form you have to fill out, or a training video you have to watch, and it's behind some crazy DRM solution that the makers thought would be good to use, which was accepted because it's "standard".
jongraehl 13y ago
As long as people link to things that work on their browser, you are wrong.

kunai 13y ago

The only true solution to the problem of DRM is to kill Hollywood. It's unlikely to happen, though. Many others have reiterated on this point, so I'm not going to waste my time iterating yet once more. http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html

zanny 13y ago
Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open technology and they flounder into obscurity. They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).
- alipang 13y ago
  I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as long as government is too large to really care about the little guy. Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as the US government or (to some extent) the EU. Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way to get laws acted in your own best interest.
  - youngerdryas 13y ago
    Having different laws in every state is exactly why most of the world can't watch Netflix. The EU is trying to consolidate things which gives incentives to negotiate contracts. The last thing the EU needs is more Balkanization as companies can't afford to comply with twenty different regulatory schemes.
    - zanny 13y ago
      If the most powerful nation conglomerate in the world has to appease a corporation and negotiate, you are already off the deep end. The world can't get netflix because big studios want to release content where they want when they want, and instant data transmission over great distance impedes that if everyone can watch the latest show in their home country before they had 3 months to buy the box set in stores.

bitwize 13y ago

The Web is going to get DRM one way or another. Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.

kunai 13y ago
> The Web is going to get DRM one way or another Why should it have to?
betterunix 13y ago
"The Web is going to get DRM one way or another." Says who?
vetinari 13y ago
And the difference between your two options is exactly what? Except that the first one is blessed by W3G?
mikeash 13y ago
I vote for the hard way.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The DRM proposals required binary blobs too for the actual decryption, so you'd probably be unable to use it on Linux either way.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago

mythz 13y ago

This objection, does a solution not help make.

mikeash 13y ago
Sure it does. "Don't" is a perfectly reasonable solution here. It won't satisfy all parties, but not all parties are worth satisfying.
- mythz 13y ago
  The future of everyone being able to view online video (e.g. Netflix/Hulu/BBC) without a plugin is not getting anywhere closer.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Sure looks like it's getting closer to me. The amount of content I can view without a plugin has absolutely exploded over the past few years. Sure, big Hollywood names aren't in there yet, but it's not like they're the only ones who make videos worth watching.
    - mythz 13y ago
      What you mean by "big Hollywood" the mainstream population refers to as "TV" and "Movies". None of which we're able to watch without a plugin. I do all my TV watching online (95% on Netflix/Hulu), even most of the videos I watch on YouTube require flash, despite being opt-in to using the HTML5 video player.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Your statement was "closer". Even if the video watchable without plugins is only 1% of the total, your statement is still wrong if it was e.g. 0.1% a few years ago. Regarding YouTube, I do most of my YouTubing on iOS devices, and it's very rare to find a video that doesn't work, so the non-plugin support is good. Why it doesn't work in your browser, I couldn't say, but at this point I suspect it's more about your setup than YouTube not supporting it at all.

chris_mahan 13y ago

when I first heard of DRM in HTML5, the first thing that came to mind was that web apps would be encrypted, and that the only interface people would have would be mouse or touch. This would essentially make the web like blue-ray: great for consuming content and playing scripted games, and not-so-great for everyone else. Also, how long before "safe" browsers only allowed drm-encrypted web apps, to "protect consumers"? I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.

kunai 13y ago
...what? That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive. Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  What if netflix released its own browser, perhaps a fork of chromium, and all it could do was go to netflix and other such approved (read: drm-ready) sites that paid a fee to netflix? And what if parents made that the default browser on the device? To protect the kids, of course. Of course.
  - rgovostes 13y ago
    What prevents that with or without DRM in HTML5?
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Well, they could say: "Download NetFlixBrowser! The fastest, safest HTML5 Browser on the planet!"
      - icebraining 13y ago
        They can already say that.

walid 13y ago

The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both browsers are open source. HTML5 DRM will only stop people from using regular copy/paste. I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.

ivanca 13y ago
Yeah, only time will tell us if watching sitcoms on the browser is really worth to lose an open internet. </sarcasm>
duncan_bayne 13y ago
The issue is that the CDMs with which the sites integrate simply won't be made available on certain platforms. E.g. Netflix isn't available on Linux, and there's no evidence that the availability of EME would change that.
fafner 13y ago
That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the EFF is absolutely not over-reacting. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
- walid 13y ago
  I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company, namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser. This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind. To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?

duncan_bayne 13y ago

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM implementations in the past have been so aggressive in their usurpation of control that they have qualified as malware; the Sony rootkit is a particularly egregious example of this. DRM actively reduces the trustworthiness and security of all machines on which it is installed. It has to by design: its stated purpose is to restrict the capabilities of a general purpose computer.

alipang 13y ago
DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  > DRM allows you to voluntarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. Of course, and I think it is also fair for consumers to voluntarily protest DRM before it is placed on our devices by expressing our concerns, as opposed to afterward when we have to do so by voting with our wallets. I don't think its "my right" to have DRM-less devices, but I think all the criticisms about freedom and security are valid as long as they are meant to appeal to the producers by signaling our desires as consumers (this as opposed to for example suggesting there should be a law against DRM which I would be against). In theory the ideal would be for everyone to be on the same page before these decisions get made.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  > As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist > society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. > Don't like it? Don't use it. I agree, but there's more to it than that. From the W3C site: "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web." ... and ... "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of a capitalist society, to lobby the W3C to refuse the addition of EME. It is inimical to their own stated goals (there are other conflicts too; see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html for details). To be clear, I'm not arguing for the initiation of force. Companies should be free to build their own DRM systems, and others to use or not use them as they choose. But the W3C should have no part of that, and the HTML5 standard should not be crippled by the inclusion of DRM. Another angle to consider is our cultural heritage. More and more of that is moving to the Web; if we tie it up with DRM, bitrot will mean that in a generation or two most of it will be inaccessible.

johnvschmitt 13y ago

Good for EFF. DRM is futile. There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell phone camera among other devices). What we've seen is: A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see illegitimate use grow. B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up & protecting our rights & values in the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them. Meaning: DRM all you want. Make it so that you can ONLY see Game of Thrones if you pay $100,000!!! Great! And, imagine how long it'd take for a copy (lower fidelity, sure) to get in the hands of a larger audience that you can't control, who doesn't like you, who you collect no $ from. Or: Drop DRM, & go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that are EASY & fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make your next content even more appealing & marketable.

biot 13y ago
HBO should have a Kickstarter campaign for each episode of Game of Thrones. Donate any amount you want, and if the total funds raised is $75 million (or whatever HBO determines is the expected sales figure of the one episode for the next 25 years), HBO releases the DRM-free episode for free to everyone who wants a copy. If the amount isn't reached, then the episode is never released. Repeat the process for each successive episode in each season.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
duncan_bayne 13y ago
Netflix uses DRM, and is one of the sponsors of this attempt to add DRM to HTML5.
- johnvschmitt 13y ago
  Yes, that's a shame. But: Netflix makes it easy & convenient. They are not the bad guy. They are really stuck between a rock & a hard place. (Between old school distributors of content (Hollywood), squeezing them for money to make sure they have no margin), and ISP's (Comcast, AT&T) who are saying, "Hey, Netflix is popular, >50% of bandwidth, so let's shake them down" (net neutrality needs to keep them from doing this). Don't blame Netflix for that DRM behavior. They are the early innovator & they look after their customers. They are just squeezed so badly. If you support net neutrality & ban DRM, you'll see more convenient, customer-friendly companies thrive in that ecosystem. If you don't, you'll see only bad players (DRM+$$$$+inconvenience) playing content you like.

cynicalkane 13y ago

The market problem is that people want to consume expensive art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question to me is whether DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible... or whether it will take over your devices with God-knows-what secret solutions, which is the situation today. I think the W3C standard is problematic (having read it) but represents a small step in the direction that is less wrong. The third option, an imaginary free-information utopia, is directly against the economic will of the people in general.

jobu 13y ago
People hate DRM because it gives the content producers too much power, and then they treat consumers like muppets: http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_legitimate_dvd.jpg http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_le... The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get paid, but giving them full control of the pipe will end up harming everyone (producers included).
- dorian-graph 13y ago
  I see people often saying to vote with your wallet and then go illegally download whatever movie, TV show, videogame or piece of software—which I find kind of funny. Why don't people vote with their time? Don't watch something, for example. I suppose the main thing I find funny is how outrageous people become when something isn't provided which seems trivial to life. I live in Australia where it seems we are one of the nations the pirates the most. People here, and elsewhere, act as if having a TV show is a basic human right and necessity. Who cares if you can't watch a TV show? I think both sides are in the wrong. Another thing with the horse-riders yelling at some large fat cats is that they often pretend to speak for the masses; the non-hackers, -geeks, or whatever labels are necessary to delineate these two groups. They say they would buy everything if it was available in a way that jives with them and postulate that the masses will run out and buy everything.. and maybe they will, but as one of the 'computer guys' when most people ask about how to use torrents and you ask them why they want to know usually they just want to get something without paying for it. This goes back to Napster too. This isn't so much directed at you, jobu, these thoughts just came to mind again after looking at the image you posted. I do agree with what's presented in the image in that it is a horrible user-experience.

bcoates 13y ago

What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying involved in a post-DRM W3C? It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List And start demanding the member organizations to make a public statement as to exactly how far the EME DRM standardization is allowed to advance before they will withdraw from the W3C.

cmircea 13y ago
I am not sure of the official position, but I seriously doubt Mozilla will EVER implement this. They've been opposing H.264, which is a lesser evil (patents) than outright DRM.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Opposition is one thing, outright boycott and attacking the legitimacy of the W3C is something else. Frankly I think the latter is necessary.
  - executionhalted 13y ago
    What would happen post-W3C? Would the idea be to start a replacement?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      It's happened before (WHAT-WG).
- blinker 13y ago
  They stopped opposing H.264 once they needed it for Firefox OS. I'd expect Mozilla to support the W3C DRM stuff as soon as someone makes Netflix a requirement for their Firefox OS phone. Maybe it won't be Mozilla but someone shipping Firefox OS will do the work. Then Mozilla will feel pressure to take the patch they provide. They're in a difficult position now that they're in the mobile phone OS market.

ancarda 13y ago

Mozilla eventually decided to support H.264 in the <video> tag. Is there any indication they will/will not support HTML 5 DRM?

blinker 13y ago
Not supporting it would be bad for Firefox OS. It would mean that platform is locked out from streaming video solutions (ie. Netflix). This would discourage carriers from supporting Firefox OS. On desktop it doesn't matter so much. They have a marketshare to make a difference when they take a stand. However now that they're in the phone market, if no carrier will take Firefox OS due to the streaming video issue then the OS is dead before it really begins.
- josteink 13y ago
  I think you generalize the absurd US cellular carrier situation on to the world. Most places in the world you have carriers which provides phone services, accessible by a SIM-card, and you have phones, which accepts SIM cards. These are two entirely separate things which you choose entirely at your own bidding. You chose the carrier which provides you with a service matching your needs at a price you are willing to pay. And you use the SIM card they provide in the phone you have chosen entirely separate. In a world like this a carrier doesn't "support" a phone. That would be like my ISP having to "support" my Dell PC, or me having to buy a PC from a limited selection offered by my ISP. It's an absurd position. Most of the world does not work like the completely and fundamentally broken US cellphone market, and generalizing based on that is doomed to reap highly inaccurate results.
  - blinker 13y ago
    I may be generalizing incorrectly but given Mozilla's lack of comment either for or against the W3C DRM initiative I think they're not wanting to jeopardize partner arrangements by saying anything negative. Even if they have no deals requiring DRM, why turn off potential partners with statements that don't need to be made yet. Usually they're publicly all over this sort of thing. I don't see any Mozilla people commenting in this thread about what they think either which is unusual but probably wise. On the other hand I don't see statements from Opera either and they're usually pretty anti this sort of thing. Maybe they're both doing behind the scenes work to scuttle the DRM initiative and don't want to make it public yet.

shmerl 13y ago

The objection is good, but how exactly is the final decision made by W3C? By majority of participants or some other way?

ollysb 13y ago

What exactly is DRM supposed to achieve? For it to work it seems to need to prevent 100% of all opportunities, worldwide, of duplicating copyrighted material. A single copy is all it takes to seed every single pirated copy. I can't see that the sales of DVDs and Blu-rays are going to dry up any time soon and given how easy it is to copy those how does DRM help at all?

tacticus 13y ago
It allows you to restrict what products OEMs are allowed to make and sell forcing them to license shit from you.

VonGuard 13y ago

OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix. Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason. Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dicks. They're listening to all sides. Who cares if there's DRM in the spec, anyway? It doesn't mean people have to use it. And we all know it'll be cracked in a matter of SECONDS upon formal implementation.

jlgreco 13y ago
Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary plugins. Why should we oblige them and dirty the standard in the process?
- VonGuard 13y ago
  Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Open standards are a way to ensure no specific company has control over stuff like this.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Bullshit. 1) I am able to gleefully avoid it these days, but in the past flash worked with Linux. Furthermore, all relevant DRM systems work with Apple devices including OSX. Netflix works on Android, and on Google's ChromeOS. 2) Even if it did, who gives a shit? I'd rather have people who absolutely must watch netflix on their laptop do it with windows than have the standard dirtied with this shit. 3) Nothing about this shit being added to the standard will make Netflix work on Linux with open-source browsers anyway. You are high if you think this will allow you to use Netflix on your GNU/Linux box. Netflix already has their shit working with google-chrome, on a Linux kernel, in ChromeOS (Linux, but not "GNUy", for lack of better terminology). They don't allow that to work with regular GNU/Linux because they don't trust the rest of the stack to keep their precious bits secret.

holloway 13y ago

An argument in favour of the W3C policy is that DRM video plugins could be retired but what about all those sites that attempt to prevent right-click|save-as on photos, or on JavaScript, and why wouldn't they use DRM too? The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?

josteink 13y ago
The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it? For now it does. But if we let it pass, you better believe that slippery slope we've went into is going to get a whole lot steeper. The open web only has one option: Fighting DRM entirely and fundamentally. We don't need Netflix on the web, and definitely not at the cost of our fabulous, open standards' core values.

byuu 13y ago

For anyone else having problems loading the page, try Google's cached version here : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

dendory 13y ago

When I try to view video content, being told that I am not wanted as a user is more common than not. If I go on Hulu, ABC, NBC, and even many YouTube videos, I am not that the maker of the video did not figure out a profitable enough ad model for my country so I should just go away. This country ban is so common because Flash players make it trivial to do so. If you extend the same to all types of web content, I fear this DRM will be used for far more than just some random Hollywood movies.

josteink 13y ago

This DRM proposition definitely needs all the resistance it can get. We cannot allow DRM into our wonderful, open standards. This is not an option. Not at any price. I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue. Have they issued any statements what so ever? Seeing what amazing things the web have enabled the last few decades, purely by being open, who are we to deny the future the same possibilities by locking it all down now? What sort of short-sighted asshole would propose such a thing? To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither. If this goes through though, what I see others are calling out for is a new consortium. If the W3C is hellbent on forking and fragmenting the web, then lets have it. But let's have it on our terms: By creating a new open web standards consortium.

jiggy2011 13y ago
"Open standards" are about documenting interfaces in such a way as that any person could develop a compatible implementation, nothing more. There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate. This proposal simply describes a standard protocol for a DRM system to be able to talk to a web browser. If you don't want to use it, simply choose a browser that ships with it disabled or disable it yourself. You're not going to lose access to your favorite sites because of this. The sites that would want to do this are already implementing paywalls or existing DRM systems.
- josteink 13y ago
  There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate. That's a bogus argument and misses the point completely. That you have closed source systems deployed on the open web is completely OK. That you have closed sourced browsers interpeting markeup is also completely OK. As long as the markup and code produced and published is compliant to the open standards we have all agreed upon. Because then anyone with the specification can interact with that content. That means that anyone, of any size, can sit down and implement a fully valid and compliant web-browser. This latest proposal from W3C means an end to that. Having the HTML specification will not be enough to create software able to render all the content on the web. Your browser will need to be "sanctioned" and "supported" by the DRM-vendors in order to work on the web. New platforms (FirefoxOS, Tizen, etc), new browsers, any new players at all and all open source endeavours are effectively shut out from this new web the W3C is drafting. That is unacceptable. This is a disastrous departure from any former W3C specification and directly in opposition to the W3C's own mission statement. We are only left to guess what sort of corruption has lead to W3C sinking this low. Whatever happened to allow this rot, a new consortium seems like a good way to solve it.

Fuxy 13y ago

I would never use a browser that implements DRM. As the EFF stated DRM is a back box with the intent of taking control from the user so why the hell should i allow it in my computer. If their content is so important to them they can keep it just stay the hell out of my browser. I value my privacy more then i covet their content.

nileshtrivedi 13y ago

This is sort of like Linux kernel supporting a fixed ABI for binary modules. There are those who say that it's a good thing and benefits are more than the costs. And then there are those who say that this would be bad and it prevents us from going through a temporary struggle that would eventually lead to a better solution for the long-term. I tend to favor the second camp. Let's not compromise on our vision for the open web. We have gone through a lot and have achieved a lot. A short-term hassle is acceptable for the long-term win. Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we tolerate the intolerant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

JonoW 13y ago

I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives. If EME is rejected and not added to the HTML spec, lets consider some alternatives: 1. Leave things as they are, so Flash and Silverlight limp along to serve DRMed content, and native apps are required to watch on devices which don't support plugins. Verdict: Not great, but hey it's how it is now. 2. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable 3. Lobby the media distributers (Netflix etc) to boycott media owners who won't drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable 4. Ask end-users to boycott purchase of un-DRMed content (and no pirate it, as they will only encourage the media owners to use more DRM). Verdict: Highly improbable. Us nerds may do it, but regular folk don't really care about DRM. 5. EME is implemented as a convention, but not in the official spec. Verdict: Possible, I think EME will be implemented in IE and Chrome with or without it being in the spec. Mozilla wouldn't I presume. Can anyone think of any others?

Daiz 13y ago
We leave things as they are. If content distributors refuse to play without DRM, let them stick to inconvenient existing plugins. The DRM-insisting gatekeepers will ultimately need the web more than the web needs them, so they'll have to concede eventually, even if it takes a good while before it happens.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Why do they need the web? If the only way to watch Game of Thrones is to install a standalone application then people will simply install the standalone application.
  - JonoW 13y ago
    I think this is the crux of the issue - should the web be a general purpose platform? Or do we draw a line somewhere and say some tasks, like watching protected video isn't something it should be doing. Personally I think all video consumption is a good fit for the web, it's seem awkward to split protected and unprotected video.
jiggy2011 13y ago

crististm 13y ago

Twenty years ago, at the rise of Internet, DRM would have been unconceivable. How come we're here now?