4 ms·

"At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web" You already have a preview: Netflix using Silverlight, which shut

"At the end of the day I'm having trouble understanding what this really means for the Web" You already have a preview: Netflix using Silverlight, which shut out everyone who is not using a Microsoft-endorsed platform. You can bet that whatever Microsoft DRM is available on Windows will be used and will have the same effect: Microsoft will not make a version for any other OS, and Hollywood will not license its entertainment to anyone who is not using Microsoft's or Apple's DRM. Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally). "At the same time, I don't think HTML-DRM will cause Netflix to drop support for Firefox" No, but it will not cause Netflix to add support for GNU/Linux or any of the other OSes they refuse to support. Who is going to develop a DRM system for an OS that allows its users to easily dump the core of any process? Even if someone did develop such a thing, why would Hollywood ever license their entertainment for it, knowing how easily a beginner-level user could circumvent it? Your reference to the TWC/CBS issue is apt. That is the future of the web of this kind of thing continues: with each step in the direction of appeasing Hollywood, we take a step towards converting the Web (and the greater Internet) into a fancy cable TV system. In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age.

nemothekid 13y ago
"In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age." I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. "Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally)." Linux users are already shit out of luck. I don't need to speculate about that this means for Linux and the web, because any decision, W3C or not, would have left Linux users shit out of luck. Finally, I'm only concerned if this means anything at all for the web. Frankly, Netflix was never going to support a platform they couldn't add DRM to because Hollywood wouldn't license content to them if they did. At this point DRM is a legal formality to Hollywood, despite whether it works or not. The reason I brought up the TWC/CBS issue was to highlight how bad these contract negotiations can go. For example, a studio like Sony will syndicate Breaking Bad to AMC. In the boilerplate clause, part of the syndication deal will say "online distribution for this content needs to have DRM for 10 years", meaning until 2018, if you watch Breaking Bad online, there will need to be some form of DRM. For a network like AMC to argue this point, there would need to be huge monetary value for them because Sony will then use the no-DRM clause to demand more money from AMC. My point is whether or not DRM is actually effective, has nothing to do with the user and everything to do with sweetening contract deals for more dosh at this point. And nothing - except a mass migration to 100% open systems - will change that point. Despite what we all believe Hollywood isn't stupid, and I doubt most of these studio execs believe DRM is actually effective, after all TPB still exists. Now, given that Hollywood has been massively lucky in that 1.) TV/Film piracy is not nearly as popular as music piracy and 2.) Piracy hasn't forced Hollywood to give up on DRM, and that Hollywood was never going to support 100% open systems anyways - what does the w3c decision actually mean for the web? Netflix is unlikely to drop support for firefox, and any other open system didn't have the means to play Hollywood content anyways (legally). Just like how the WHATWG stepped around the W3C for not playing by their rules (even though the WHATWG's rules were better), the Hollywood will just step around the W3C rules if this didn't pass. However this did pass, and now has the overall direction of the web actually changed?
- pyalot2 13y ago
  > I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. Those are in no way comparable and that's a flawed analagoy. The future of the web is threatened by the attempt to convert it into a DVD/Blu-Ray player. The Web is not a stupid playback machine. And EME is so bad because it technically/legally excludes the community from improving it in the future.

nemothekid 13y ago

"In other words, we are seeing a systematic effort to destroy the most open communication system of the computer age." I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. "Those of us who want to use free/libre software will just be SOL if we want to watch mainstream entertainment (legally)." Linux users are already shit out of luck. I don't need to speculate about that this means for Linux and the web, because any decision, W3C or not, would have left Linux users shit out of luck. Finally, I'm only concerned if this means anything at all for the web. Frankly, Netflix was never going to support a platform they couldn't add DRM to because Hollywood wouldn't license content to them if they did. At this point DRM is a legal formality to Hollywood, despite whether it works or not. The reason I brought up the TWC/CBS issue was to highlight how bad these contract negotiations can go. For example, a studio like Sony will syndicate Breaking Bad to AMC. In the boilerplate clause, part of the syndication deal will say "online distribution for this content needs to have DRM for 10 years", meaning until 2018, if you watch Breaking Bad online, there will need to be some form of DRM. For a network like AMC to argue this point, there would need to be huge monetary value for them because Sony will then use the no-DRM clause to demand more money from AMC. My point is whether or not DRM is actually effective, has nothing to do with the user and everything to do with sweetening contract deals for more dosh at this point. And nothing - except a mass migration to 100% open systems - will change that point. Despite what we all believe Hollywood isn't stupid, and I doubt most of these studio execs believe DRM is actually effective, after all TPB still exists. Now, given that Hollywood has been massively lucky in that 1.) TV/Film piracy is not nearly as popular as music piracy and 2.) Piracy hasn't forced Hollywood to give up on DRM, and that Hollywood was never going to support 100% open systems anyways - what does the w3c decision actually mean for the web? Netflix is unlikely to drop support for firefox, and any other open system didn't have the means to play Hollywood content anyways (legally). Just like how the WHATWG stepped around the W3C for not playing by their rules (even though the WHATWG's rules were better), the Hollywood will just step around the W3C rules if this didn't pass. However this did pass, and now has the overall direction of the web actually changed?

pyalot2 13y ago
> I think you are severely overblowing this issue. If the web can survive through Sony implementing Rootkits as a form of DRM, I think the web can survive this. Those are in no way comparable and that's a flawed analagoy. The future of the web is threatened by the attempt to convert it into a DVD/Blu-Ray player. The Web is not a stupid playback machine. And EME is so bad because it technically/legally excludes the community from improving it in the future.