8 ms·

What do we get for that DRM?

62 points by pwg 13y ago

antocv 13y ago
Yes indeed, the consumers got nothing in return for accepting DRM, for accepting the side-stepping the term "buy" - the ebooks are still way too expensive and it can be argued the popularity of eReaders and eBook buying has come at a time after DRM became viable, unlike music piracy - which came before DRM and DMCA even existed. eBooks, readers and stores, all began with DRM, and the prices have only gone up - despite the consumers giving up their ownership. It looks almost like DRM is designed to empower a few at the expense of the many.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  The biggest proponent of EME/DRM is microsoft. And they are the first who have put it into their desktop browser (IE11). Microsoft was also the party most eager to stiffle dissent in the encrypted media working group by the likes of me, EFF, etc. and who aggressively boxed this "standard" trough with almost daily telephone conferences they held with apple, google, bbc, netflix etc. DRM is designed to put up barriers against competitors. It's designed to stiffle innovation and to vendor-lock in users and authors. Why do you think Microsoft is all over EME like flies over cowdung? Microsoft has lost tremendous amounts of browser market share, and here comes EME/DRM, and they finally see a credible chance to lock "the web" back into their platform.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    I don't fundamentally understand why this rant is relevant towards a discussion of _standardized_ DRM. IMO the debate is not "standardized DRM vs no DRM" but "standardized DRM vs ad-hoc DRM".
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Well, for starters, they're not standardizing the DRM. They're standardizing the way you talk to the DRM, but your fully compliant standard browser will not show you Netflix until Netflix has shipped their ad-hoc DRM solution on your platform.
      - chc 13y ago
        That doesn't really address the question Tyler was asking, though. The question is, how does standardizing the way you talk to the DRM make the situation worse than one where they didn't standardize the way you talk to the DRM?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        "So the argument "Oh Apple and Microsoft are just gonna profit off EME" is moot, they're gonna pull their vendor-lock in and non-standard web fraud anyway, but now they get to say "waaaat? we're not evil! see, it's a standard!!!""
        chc 13y ago
        So they'll use one justification rather than another? That doesn't even seem worth noticing, much less protesting.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    EME was proposed and designed by Google & netflix and implemented in chrome book long before ie had it. the biggest proponents by far are Google and Netflix. But hey you don't see anybody talking about how Google wants to kill the open web, its simply the big bad WC3.
  - asadotzler 13y ago
    You seem to have your facts regularly wrong. And your pronouncements of the future don't seem terribly informed. What qualifies you make these assertion? Given your love of incorrect facts, I wonder what are your credentials.
- jellicle 13y ago
  Really the simplest solution would be to ban the use of the word "buy" in commerce with regard to DRM entities. Rent. Lease. Those are the proper words. If customers are faced with the choice of buying content from one entity, and renting it from another, I think they'll vote with their wallets and most DRM will disappear. But as long as corporations are allowed to use the words "buy" and "sale" for transactions which are not purchases or sales, the deceit will continue.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - antocv 13y ago
    Yes! However, as that does not seem to be the case, and law-enforcement is lax on what is a buy-sell transaction, lets make that kickstarter-alike project but instead of donating the users actually "BUY" ownership of a company or idea they want to support. Now the ownership can be restricted as much as a donation or an ebook "purchase" is, but it would still be a competitor to kickstarter and other projects who are not allowed to use the term Buy for their marketing purposes but are forced to accept donations only.
- consultant23522 13y ago
  Meh, in exchange for DRM I get Netflix and Hulu content streamed to my house for dirt cheap pricing. Now I might DISAGREE that DRM was necessary or even useful, but the content providers simply would not have made that content available without DRM. So that's what I got in exchange, content.
pyalot2 13y ago
EME has a proprietary part, the CDM (content decryption module). In order for the browser (its compositor etc.) to work, the browser needs access to the plain (unencrypted) content, to do things like layering (alpha blending) elements on top of each other, CSS transformations, CSS shading and putting things into WebGL. If the CDM would give the browser access to the plain content, then the browser (or any program) could just dump the plain content to disk, exactly what EME/CDM is designed to prevent. In that scenario only proprietary browsers would be able to implement EME. In above scenario, if EME was adopted across major web properties (like netflix, amazon, youtube, vimeo, dailymotion, bbc, facebook etc.) then it would mean that Open Source/community browsers would be regarded as "the browsers that don't work" and would loose substantial market share and couldn't gain traction. This would be very bad for the Web as it would revert the Web back to a browser monoculture (of the kind we already had with IE6). Innovation would stall. I suspect that the existing EME/CDM implementation in IE11 and Chromebooks is based on the CDM sharing plain content with the browser (for reasons I'll get to below). If the CDM does not share the plain content with the browser, and the browser just gets to instruct the CDM to "draw there", then that means that: You cannot layer stuff on top of the content (customized playback controls, user annotations, closed captions, advertising, other informational/navigational elements, branding etc.). You couldn't CSS transform the container with the content. You couldn't CSS shade/filter the content. You couldn't control its CSS opacity and you can't put the content into WebGL. You couldn't easily implement tab-switching (or alternative schemes of tabbing). This would be a serious drawback for EME, and it would make it practically unusable on most web properties that might want to use it (every web property adds its own social features, playback, branding and advertising to the content it serves up). That means that the only two choices to make EME work are either seriously crippling the Web altogether by remaking it into a proprietary monoculture, or crippling EME so much that nobody would want to use it. It's a very bad standard.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Most people who put content on the web want it to be shared and viewed by as many people as possible, so it is not in their interest to use DRM and most do not use it now. The only exception seems to be holywood style content which must be distributed by DRM by edict of the media companies. Whether or not this standard goes through doesn't change either of these incentives.
FedRegister 13y ago
Bah, fork the W3C standards, strip out the DRM bullshit, and support an open, community maintained browser that's focused on the users, not sucking at the teet of Google.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  The W3C standards are so far licensed non-derivatively, but that's about to change.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
I can kind of see what the supporters of this in the W3C are thinking: we want Netflix/BBC etc. to be using 90% of our stack (and 10% in some binary CDM blob), rather than 10% of our stack (and doing the rest in Silverlight or Flash). Google for example want to build Chromebooks. They want it to be built around web technologies, with no plugins, but that means no Netflix (and Netflix in turn are forced into this by Hollywood). No Netflix et al, makes Chromebooks much less appealing in the market. Overall I'm torn. I'd like to see Chromebooks replace Windows XP, and HTML5 replace Flash and Silverlight. Maybe it'll make it all much clearer: You can't watch this video, not because we haven't made Flash or Silverlight available but simply because we can't trust your computer to keep things from you and obey our instructions instead.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  It's fairly charitable to think they are thinking "we want Netflix/BBC etc. to be using 90% of our stack (and 10% in some binary CDM blob), rather than 10% of our stack (and doing the rest in Silverlight or Flash)" without knowing what the benefit of that would be. The proprietary component is no less closed, vulnerable, and otherwise unclean than a browser plugin.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  It will be: "You can't watch this video because you don't have IE11 or Chrome" because Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM. EME is steering full steam ahead into a new proprietary browser monopoly with either Microsoft or Google coming out on top and having their position cemented by DRM, forever, thanks to the DMCA (because when have meaningful copyright reforms happened, ever?) So what's at stake here is the future of the web, as we know it, as a platform. And if you want to know how that future under EME looks like, go no further than look back at the 6 years of utter stagnation when IE6 held that monopoly.
  - asadotzler 13y ago
    "'You can't watch this video because you don't have IE11 or Chrome" because Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM." pyalot2, why do you think Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM. Adobe and Microsoft and Google have had no problems making plug-ins for Firefox in the past, why would they stop now?
Pxtl 13y ago
Improvements to a general-purpose plug-in interface rather than using the old Netscape one would make more sense than specifically targeting video plug-ins.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
malandrew 13y ago
"After acknowledging that, however, he goes on to define an open web as a marketplace, something that is “universal in that it can contain anything”, rather than being universal in that its content can be read by anyone." That's a very naïve view and one that I wouldn't expect from TBL. The open web, as a marketplace, is already universal in that it can contain anything. Every single one of the things that DRM is meant to protect can already exist on the open web. The problem is that the publishers are too stubborn to allow content without DRM. That's either a legal problem or bureaucratic problem, but it is certainly not a technical problem. The W3C should only be standardizing technical solutions to technical problems, not technical solutions to social or legal problems.

62 points by pwg 13y ago

Yes indeed, the consumers got nothing in return for accepting DRM, for accepting the side-stepping the term "buy" - the ebooks are still way too expensive and it can be argued the popularity of eReaders and eBook buying has come at a time after DRM became viable, unlike music piracy - which came before DRM and DMCA even existed. eBooks, readers and stores, all began with DRM, and the prices have only gone up - despite the consumers giving up their ownership. It looks almost like DRM is designed to empower a few at the expense of the many.

pyalot2 13y ago
The biggest proponent of EME/DRM is microsoft. And they are the first who have put it into their desktop browser (IE11). Microsoft was also the party most eager to stiffle dissent in the encrypted media working group by the likes of me, EFF, etc. and who aggressively boxed this "standard" trough with almost daily telephone conferences they held with apple, google, bbc, netflix etc. DRM is designed to put up barriers against competitors. It's designed to stiffle innovation and to vendor-lock in users and authors. Why do you think Microsoft is all over EME like flies over cowdung? Microsoft has lost tremendous amounts of browser market share, and here comes EME/DRM, and they finally see a credible chance to lock "the web" back into their platform.
- TylerE 13y ago
  I don't fundamentally understand why this rant is relevant towards a discussion of _standardized_ DRM. IMO the debate is not "standardized DRM vs no DRM" but "standardized DRM vs ad-hoc DRM".
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Well, for starters, they're not standardizing the DRM. They're standardizing the way you talk to the DRM, but your fully compliant standard browser will not show you Netflix until Netflix has shipped their ad-hoc DRM solution on your platform.
    - chc 13y ago
      That doesn't really address the question Tyler was asking, though. The question is, how does standardizing the way you talk to the DRM make the situation worse than one where they didn't standardize the way you talk to the DRM?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        "So the argument "Oh Apple and Microsoft are just gonna profit off EME" is moot, they're gonna pull their vendor-lock in and non-standard web fraud anyway, but now they get to say "waaaat? we're not evil! see, it's a standard!!!""
        chc 13y ago
        So they'll use one justification rather than another? That doesn't even seem worth noticing, much less protesting.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  EME was proposed and designed by Google & netflix and implemented in chrome book long before ie had it. the biggest proponents by far are Google and Netflix. But hey you don't see anybody talking about how Google wants to kill the open web, its simply the big bad WC3.
- asadotzler 13y ago
  You seem to have your facts regularly wrong. And your pronouncements of the future don't seem terribly informed. What qualifies you make these assertion? Given your love of incorrect facts, I wonder what are your credentials.
jellicle 13y ago
Really the simplest solution would be to ban the use of the word "buy" in commerce with regard to DRM entities. Rent. Lease. Those are the proper words. If customers are faced with the choice of buying content from one entity, and renting it from another, I think they'll vote with their wallets and most DRM will disappear. But as long as corporations are allowed to use the words "buy" and "sale" for transactions which are not purchases or sales, the deceit will continue.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- antocv 13y ago
  Yes! However, as that does not seem to be the case, and law-enforcement is lax on what is a buy-sell transaction, lets make that kickstarter-alike project but instead of donating the users actually "BUY" ownership of a company or idea they want to support. Now the ownership can be restricted as much as a donation or an ebook "purchase" is, but it would still be a competitor to kickstarter and other projects who are not allowed to use the term Buy for their marketing purposes but are forced to accept donations only.
consultant23522 13y ago
Meh, in exchange for DRM I get Netflix and Hulu content streamed to my house for dirt cheap pricing. Now I might DISAGREE that DRM was necessary or even useful, but the content providers simply would not have made that content available without DRM. So that's what I got in exchange, content.

pyalot2 13y ago

EME has a proprietary part, the CDM (content decryption module). In order for the browser (its compositor etc.) to work, the browser needs access to the plain (unencrypted) content, to do things like layering (alpha blending) elements on top of each other, CSS transformations, CSS shading and putting things into WebGL. If the CDM would give the browser access to the plain content, then the browser (or any program) could just dump the plain content to disk, exactly what EME/CDM is designed to prevent. In that scenario only proprietary browsers would be able to implement EME. In above scenario, if EME was adopted across major web properties (like netflix, amazon, youtube, vimeo, dailymotion, bbc, facebook etc.) then it would mean that Open Source/community browsers would be regarded as "the browsers that don't work" and would loose substantial market share and couldn't gain traction. This would be very bad for the Web as it would revert the Web back to a browser monoculture (of the kind we already had with IE6). Innovation would stall. I suspect that the existing EME/CDM implementation in IE11 and Chromebooks is based on the CDM sharing plain content with the browser (for reasons I'll get to below). If the CDM does not share the plain content with the browser, and the browser just gets to instruct the CDM to "draw there", then that means that: You cannot layer stuff on top of the content (customized playback controls, user annotations, closed captions, advertising, other informational/navigational elements, branding etc.). You couldn't CSS transform the container with the content. You couldn't CSS shade/filter the content. You couldn't control its CSS opacity and you can't put the content into WebGL. You couldn't easily implement tab-switching (or alternative schemes of tabbing). This would be a serious drawback for EME, and it would make it practically unusable on most web properties that might want to use it (every web property adds its own social features, playback, branding and advertising to the content it serves up). That means that the only two choices to make EME work are either seriously crippling the Web altogether by remaking it into a proprietary monoculture, or crippling EME so much that nobody would want to use it. It's a very bad standard.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Most people who put content on the web want it to be shared and viewed by as many people as possible, so it is not in their interest to use DRM and most do not use it now. The only exception seems to be holywood style content which must be distributed by DRM by edict of the media companies. Whether or not this standard goes through doesn't change either of these incentives.

FedRegister 13y ago

Bah, fork the W3C standards, strip out the DRM bullshit, and support an open, community maintained browser that's focused on the users, not sucking at the teet of Google.

pyalot2 13y ago
The W3C standards are so far licensed non-derivatively, but that's about to change.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

I can kind of see what the supporters of this in the W3C are thinking: we want Netflix/BBC etc. to be using 90% of our stack (and 10% in some binary CDM blob), rather than 10% of our stack (and doing the rest in Silverlight or Flash). Google for example want to build Chromebooks. They want it to be built around web technologies, with no plugins, but that means no Netflix (and Netflix in turn are forced into this by Hollywood). No Netflix et al, makes Chromebooks much less appealing in the market. Overall I'm torn. I'd like to see Chromebooks replace Windows XP, and HTML5 replace Flash and Silverlight. Maybe it'll make it all much clearer: You can't watch this video, not because we haven't made Flash or Silverlight available but simply because we can't trust your computer to keep things from you and obey our instructions instead.

Zigurd 13y ago
It's fairly charitable to think they are thinking "we want Netflix/BBC etc. to be using 90% of our stack (and 10% in some binary CDM blob), rather than 10% of our stack (and doing the rest in Silverlight or Flash)" without knowing what the benefit of that would be. The proprietary component is no less closed, vulnerable, and otherwise unclean than a browser plugin.
pyalot2 13y ago
It will be: "You can't watch this video because you don't have IE11 or Chrome" because Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM. EME is steering full steam ahead into a new proprietary browser monopoly with either Microsoft or Google coming out on top and having their position cemented by DRM, forever, thanks to the DMCA (because when have meaningful copyright reforms happened, ever?) So what's at stake here is the future of the web, as we know it, as a platform. And if you want to know how that future under EME looks like, go no further than look back at the 6 years of utter stagnation when IE6 held that monopoly.
- asadotzler 13y ago
  "'You can't watch this video because you don't have IE11 or Chrome" because Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM." pyalot2, why do you think Firefox will be legally barred from accessing the CDM. Adobe and Microsoft and Google have had no problems making plug-ins for Firefox in the past, why would they stop now?

Pxtl 13y ago

Improvements to a general-purpose plug-in interface rather than using the old Netscape one would make more sense than specifically targeting video plug-ins.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

malandrew 13y ago

"After acknowledging that, however, he goes on to define an open web as a marketplace, something that is “universal in that it can contain anything”, rather than being universal in that its content can be read by anyone." That's a very naïve view and one that I wouldn't expect from TBL. The open web, as a marketplace, is already universal in that it can contain anything. Every single one of the things that DRM is meant to protect can already exist on the open web. The problem is that the publishers are too stubborn to allow content without DRM. That's either a legal problem or bureaucratic problem, but it is certainly not a technical problem. The W3C should only be standardizing technical solutions to technical problems, not technical solutions to social or legal problems.