4 ms·

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is

by pkulak 13y ago

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some everything-is-free utopia, just never visit netflix.com.

chadwickthebold 13y ago
There's a difference between a closed plugin and a closed browser. Let the DRM content stay in their plugins in their paywalled sites, while the web in general remains open and benefits from the creativity and innovation that flows from that openness.
- cheald 13y ago
  EME CDMs are closed plugins for open browsers. It's literally the status quo except with a smaller breakage surface due to a more specialized purpose.
- debacle 13y ago
  I don't think anyone said that the DRM code will be closed source. You don't complain when you can't decrypt PGP, even though PGP implementations are open source. This is the same thing.
  - revelation 13y ago
    If it's open source, I can just swoop in, inject some code and make a copy of the decrypted data stream for 'archival purposes'. Won't take a day for a PoC. I can still do this with closed source DRM blobs, but it will take much longer. And there will probably be pointless anti-debugger tricks, system wide hooks that break countless other software, kernel drivers that BSoD your system.. That is precisely why this proposal is such a terrible idea. It writes into a standard that it is okay to produce software that is actively hostile to its user, while having absolutely no security gain whatsoever (because the concept is fundamentally broken: if the data is being decrypted on my system, I will get it).
    - debacle 13y ago
      But you can do that with any DRM - the unencrypted stream will always be in memory at some point.
      - revelation 13y ago
        Yes, that is my point. That is why any DRM plugin will be closed-source and probably filled with landmines and obfuscation: its the only sliver of a chance they have to make getting the unencrypted data hard.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Not if the decryption is handled by hardware that refuses to give an unencrypted video stream back to the CPU.
        revelation 13y ago
        An extra hardware chip is a closed system. You control all the input that comes in. It is just a more annoying form of obfuscation at that point.
        nitrogen 13y ago
        Nothing in the W3C's DRM spec provides for anything better than a closed hardware chip.
betterunix 13y ago
"Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM" Why should we care? The web is not supposed to restrict users. If Universal does not like it, they can go somewhere else -- they have the cable TV system with all its restrictions and anti-freedom design.
- pkulak 13y ago
  No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular. I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon.
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    > No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular. This is obtuse. The HTTP and HTML specs provide standards for interoperation. Some modes of operation are forbidden for some users, and the specification provides a way for that to be communicated. It sounds like you're taking a whole-system approach to freedom, which is certainly valid (see the AGPL for a "free" response). But it's orthogonal to the issue at hand, which is interoperability. Any client can still implement the specification. That said, I'm completely at a loss as to how you believe SSL "restricts users". > I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? The browser should implement an interoperable standard. That standard should be accessible to everyone. Any browser vendor should be able to, once they have properly implemented the specification, stream a movie from Netflix (this is the very thing that EME makes impossible). > Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". This does not have to be reality, no matter what vendors say. There's a reason digital restriction management was forced out of the music space: it's ineffective, it's consumer-hostile, and it hinders innovation. Many of us are mad precisely because the vendors played hardball in their negotiations, and the W3C wimped out. Vendors need the web more than the web needs the vendors, but the W3C didn't take an equally hard line back and we're left with a decision that screws everyone but media companies. > That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon. The problem is, this decision hinders innovation. It is now much harder for a Roku competitor to exist, because before they can get off the ground they have to comply with byzantine demands of old media companies. "totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users" is the future of communication and computing (at least technically, politically is a different story). This decision is mired in the past. Let's circle back to this: > Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". This is exactly what EME does. The digital restriction management "extensions" are plugins. They are binary blobs, tied to specific hardware implementations. This regresses the web back to the "best viewed on Windows in IE 2.3" days, where interoperation is dead and cross-platform compatibility is a hippy dream. And that's why people are mad at the W3C for no longer representing what the web is supposed to be.
adrr 13y ago
I don't believe that. Music industry said the same thing, no one supported DRM and now music is DRM free. It was only a matter time before Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu went DRM free.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  The movie/television industry wasn't crippled piracy, and most likely will never be. These guys print money and it seems they will print money for time to come, and Netflix/Prime/Hulu generates pennies compared to the TV/Movie industries billions. Simply put, the movie/television is much more diverse than the music industry and won't see its lunch eaten. The biggest hurdle in getting DRM content in the contract games that are being played with all the major providers right now (remember the TWC/CBS dispute). In these contracts are clauses for all content to be DRM'd. Even if everyone understood that DRM is bad UX, no one gives a shit about fighting those clauses when TWC is removing CBS over contract disputes. It just currently doesn't make sense to risk hundreds of millions of dollars for a moral issue that 99% of users simply don't care about.
__david__ 13y ago
> Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? They should be. Because I'm going to continue getting my DRM free video from the Pirate Bay until they do. They might have a chance at revenue if they'd just get over themselves. Dinosaurs.

by pkulak 13y ago

chadwickthebold 13y ago

There's a difference between a closed plugin and a closed browser. Let the DRM content stay in their plugins in their paywalled sites, while the web in general remains open and benefits from the creativity and innovation that flows from that openness.

cheald 13y ago
EME CDMs are closed plugins for open browsers. It's literally the status quo except with a smaller breakage surface due to a more specialized purpose.
debacle 13y ago
I don't think anyone said that the DRM code will be closed source. You don't complain when you can't decrypt PGP, even though PGP implementations are open source. This is the same thing.
- revelation 13y ago
  If it's open source, I can just swoop in, inject some code and make a copy of the decrypted data stream for 'archival purposes'. Won't take a day for a PoC. I can still do this with closed source DRM blobs, but it will take much longer. And there will probably be pointless anti-debugger tricks, system wide hooks that break countless other software, kernel drivers that BSoD your system.. That is precisely why this proposal is such a terrible idea. It writes into a standard that it is okay to produce software that is actively hostile to its user, while having absolutely no security gain whatsoever (because the concept is fundamentally broken: if the data is being decrypted on my system, I will get it).
  - debacle 13y ago
    But you can do that with any DRM - the unencrypted stream will always be in memory at some point.
    - revelation 13y ago
      Yes, that is my point. That is why any DRM plugin will be closed-source and probably filled with landmines and obfuscation: its the only sliver of a chance they have to make getting the unencrypted data hard.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Not if the decryption is handled by hardware that refuses to give an unencrypted video stream back to the CPU.
      - revelation 13y ago
        An extra hardware chip is a closed system. You control all the input that comes in. It is just a more annoying form of obfuscation at that point.
        nitrogen 13y ago
        Nothing in the W3C's DRM spec provides for anything better than a closed hardware chip.

betterunix 13y ago

"Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM" Why should we care? The web is not supposed to restrict users. If Universal does not like it, they can go somewhere else -- they have the cable TV system with all its restrictions and anti-freedom design.

pkulak 13y ago
No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular. I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  > No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular. This is obtuse. The HTTP and HTML specs provide standards for interoperation. Some modes of operation are forbidden for some users, and the specification provides a way for that to be communicated. It sounds like you're taking a whole-system approach to freedom, which is certainly valid (see the AGPL for a "free" response). But it's orthogonal to the issue at hand, which is interoperability. Any client can still implement the specification. That said, I'm completely at a loss as to how you believe SSL "restricts users". > I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? The browser should implement an interoperable standard. That standard should be accessible to everyone. Any browser vendor should be able to, once they have properly implemented the specification, stream a movie from Netflix (this is the very thing that EME makes impossible). > Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". This does not have to be reality, no matter what vendors say. There's a reason digital restriction management was forced out of the music space: it's ineffective, it's consumer-hostile, and it hinders innovation. Many of us are mad precisely because the vendors played hardball in their negotiations, and the W3C wimped out. Vendors need the web more than the web needs the vendors, but the W3C didn't take an equally hard line back and we're left with a decision that screws everyone but media companies. > That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon. The problem is, this decision hinders innovation. It is now much harder for a Roku competitor to exist, because before they can get off the ground they have to comply with byzantine demands of old media companies. "totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users" is the future of communication and computing (at least technically, politically is a different story). This decision is mired in the past. Let's circle back to this: > Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free". This is exactly what EME does. The digital restriction management "extensions" are plugins. They are binary blobs, tied to specific hardware implementations. This regresses the web back to the "best viewed on Windows in IE 2.3" days, where interoperation is dead and cross-platform compatibility is a hippy dream. And that's why people are mad at the W3C for no longer representing what the web is supposed to be.

adrr 13y ago

I don't believe that. Music industry said the same thing, no one supported DRM and now music is DRM free. It was only a matter time before Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu went DRM free.

nemothekid 13y ago
The movie/television industry wasn't crippled piracy, and most likely will never be. These guys print money and it seems they will print money for time to come, and Netflix/Prime/Hulu generates pennies compared to the TV/Movie industries billions. Simply put, the movie/television is much more diverse than the music industry and won't see its lunch eaten. The biggest hurdle in getting DRM content in the contract games that are being played with all the major providers right now (remember the TWC/CBS dispute). In these contracts are clauses for all content to be DRM'd. Even if everyone understood that DRM is bad UX, no one gives a shit about fighting those clauses when TWC is removing CBS over contract disputes. It just currently doesn't make sense to risk hundreds of millions of dollars for a moral issue that 99% of users simply don't care about.

__david__ 13y ago

> Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag? They should be. Because I'm going to continue getting my DRM free video from the Pirate Bay until they do. They might have a chance at revenue if they'd just get over themselves. Dinosaurs.