30 ms·

Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential

597 points by duncan_bayne 13y ago

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0060.html

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
duncan_bayne 13y ago
It's worth mentioning that the CEO of the W3C, Jeff Jaffe, is trying to rectify that: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0067.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2...
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  ... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far without the requirements being public.
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    It's not that surprising, given it started off with a proposal of the spec. I mean, it was basically stated that among other things a secure path to the external hardware (like HDCP) was needed, and the actual DRM itself isn't specified anywhere.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      Yeah, that should have been a warning sign. The thing that really set off my spidey senses was folks on the list saying "if you have a better idea than EME + CDM, please propose it", then all proposals being shot down. The whole thing looks rather suspicious to me, hence my attempt to back it up a level of abstraction to the actual requirements.
  - wmf 13y ago
    There are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf (see Exhibit E on p. 90) In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convinced them that he'd make them enough money to make up for any piracy that iTMS allowed. Likewise Windows XP did not meet Blu-ray's "bag of hurt" robustness requirements but they made an exception because no one was running Vista and Hollywood presumably cared more about their movies being playable on computers than about the piracy that XP would allow. Of course, this doesn't help free software people who aren't willing to negotiate and would be starting from a very weak position even if they were.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here. It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents. EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.
      - wmf 13y ago
        Free software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.
        betterunix 13y ago
        Can you even name any other class of software that cannot work unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even read the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.
girvo 13y ago
Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.
- Touche 13y ago
  It will work under Google Chrome (not Chromium) on Linux most likely, as Google is a DRM vendor.
  - cpeterso 13y ago
    And Google will presumably have a Linux CDM for Chrome OS, so they could release it for Linux desktop, too.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      But it doesn't matter. Google could release their CDM for any operating system they choose; it doesn't alter the fact that EME and CDM are inimical to the Open Web and should be rejected by the W3C.
  - wmf 13y ago
    AFAIK ChromeOS supports Widevine EME and Chrome does not. Why is it enabled on one platform and not the other? Make of that what you will.
    - bzbarsky 13y ago
      Because they haven't got it locked down enough yet, presumably. Chrome on Android doesn't support it either, yet, but http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=275989 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=275989 is targeted for Chrome 32...
- code_duck 13y ago
  They're going to have to create ways to play their media on Linux, with the growing popularity of the OS for appliances such as living room video players and products like the Steam Machine.
alexnking 13y ago
Maybe instead of getting everyone to adopt Silverlight, we could just make the web more like Silverlight. Like more closed and stuff, because movies!
- viraptor 13y ago
  Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM. It's a web content runtime similar to flash. Sure, some codecs exposed through the runtime on a windows machine supported DRM. But silverlight itself has as much to do with DRM as http that was used to transport that content.
  - beagle3 13y ago
    > Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM You are technically correct ("The best kind of correct"). However, the only places where Silverlight still enjoys any use is, as far as I can tell, in streaming services to PC and Mac (e.g. Netflix) - and in those places, the only reason they preferred Silverlight to Flash or HTML5 video is .. DRM. So practically, Silverlight is on life support maintained by DRM. If e.g. Netflix decides to drop DRM, you can bet they will stop using Silverlight and switch to something more portable (e.g. Flash or HTML5 video). Statistically, Silverlight use has everything to do with DRM. (weak analogy: Guns don't have anything to do with causing bodily damage. They just shoot projectiles at high speeds. In this thread, we are discussing personal safety)
  - ericd 13y ago
    If Silverlight is predominantly used for that reason (which I believe it is and http is not at all), it's a fair characterization.
TempleOSV2 13y ago
God is perfectly just. Steal, get stolen from. Fuck with somebody get punished. Suffer, get rewarded. God says... I'm_grieved Is_that_your_final_answer strip what_luck et_tu bizarre impossible couldn't_be_better lift no_way_dude enough_said it's_my_world exorbitant ---- I have God on my side. I have complete confidence in justice. God claimed Deep Water Horizon.
belluchan 13y ago
Can't we just fork the w3? Start using Firefox and forget about these people. Oh I'm sorry your browser is a little slower, but at least it's not Google made.
- magicalist 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mozilla is a W3C member organization. Perhaps you're thinking of something like the WHATWG? (bad news for you on the Google front if it is)
- gsnedders 13y ago
  Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born. The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specified than ever, and more interoperable than ever, but it's been a long, hard journey there. Consider the spec has been worked on for over a decade now. Respecifying, from scratch, large parts of the web platform is an incredibly large undertaking, especially ensuring the spec defines something compatible with almost all web content when browsers frequently disagree in edge-cases with up-until-now unspecified behaviour.
  - etherealG 13y ago
    are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf
    - petercooper 13y ago
      The background on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ and rationale: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences
rlx0x 13y ago
This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI/HDCP is broken beyond repair. And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a propertary OS (windows) and buying a stream everytime I want to watch something if I can just download a release and watch it, and its not like they can do anything against that either. Why should I bother and buy HDCP capable new hardware, bother with proprietary NSA-compliant US software I much rather buy the DVD, trash it and just download it in a open and free format (I don't even bother with ripping (and breaking CSS) anymore).
- gsnedders 13y ago
  What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is likely to become part of the de-facto Web Platform. And if you read the lists (as opposed to overly emotional hearsay calling them stupid), you'll realize their concern isn't so much piracy in and of itself (they recognize DRM can and will be broken — they aren't blind), but rather "casual piracy", as it were, ripping a disc having had it lent to you, for example. The aim is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to work-around that that doesn't happen, not that it avoids release on P2P networks and the like.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?
kevin_bauer 13y ago
I guess, the "another backdoor" proposal will go very well in Europe, where most citizens are just static about americas view on privacy and respect for constitutional rights. Way to go, maybe the W3C will finally get Europe and the rest of the "free" world to create their own web!
Zigurd 13y ago
Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  There are several technical reasons why EME is superior to the existing solutions; in particular, usability and ease of implementation are two. However that doesn't address the fundamental problem that EME breaks the Open Web.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    I could sort of get "ease of implementation" but would trade that on behalf of the implementers to keep their secret bullshit out of standards. Have they got an actual case that says it's easier versus plug-in implementations that would, in real world cases, rely on libraries the content publishers agree to use?
    - yk 13y ago
      Yes, malware. EME creates a nice standard compatible way for bidirectional communication with arbitrary servers, for native code run with the privileges of the user. ( By now there is at least a security considerations section in their standard... what could possibly go wrong.)
- gsnedders 13y ago
  EME essentially defines a wrapper around a module, which can quite easily be a plugin, that implements the DRM. You can view it as a means to require smaller plugins than NPAPI, PPAPI, etc.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    So, why have that discussion inside a standards discussion, especially if it brings in confidentiality requirements? Let the publishers talk among themselves and write their plug-ins.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
What's the problem? Don't support companies that distribute any DRM content. Standardizing DRM and propogating DRM aren't the same thing.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  It sure helps propagating it, once you have a standard all the vendors can use.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    But all this standardises is the interop between the browser and the non-user-modifiable client component, the CDM.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      Any standard makes it less messy and gives them more excuses to continue pushing it instead of admitting that it should be dropped. It's absurd to promote standards for unethical practices.
      - duncan_bayne 13y ago
        Yes. Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining things in my previous post. I was just trying to say that EME being standardised won't actually help standardise CDMs.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Standardizing DRM is bad because it prolongs its usage and makes it easier to apply. DRM shouldn't be helped in any way. It should be made harder to use for those with bad intentions who wish to proliferate it, not easier. The problem with avoiding is, that many don't understand why they should vote with their wallets and boycott Netflix, Steam and other similar services which proliferate DRM. Many readily and gladly use them. Either because they don't understand the unethical nature of it, or because they are getting used to the police state mentality, which they accept for the price of getting some service. Unfortunately, the later seems to be the case more and more.
Nursie 13y ago
Great. DRM. The best example of shooting yourself in the foot ever. Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along. Intended effect - No Piracy Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their products become and the better piracy looks in comparison. Pirates don't only beat the legit industry on price, they beat them on quality and availability. How can the industry allow this to stand? Let alone continue down the same path with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!?!
- byuu 13y ago
  The DRM is becoming increasingly complex and elaborate, and taking longer and longer to fully crack. Compare PS2 to PS3 crack times, for instance. The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight filler tracks. But as far as music and movies go, the genie's already out of the bottle: even with unbreakable DRM, we can always fall back on old camcorders / capture cards and microphones to make lossy copies. I think most pirates will tolerate a bit of quality loss if it saves them heaps of cash. I think they will ultimately succeed in game DRM that remains unbreakable for the entire duration of a game's market viability, though. Especially with required online connectivity components. But only time will tell.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    DRM was and always will be pointless and insulting, no matter how elaborate it will become. Because it's not the right way to treat customers.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    DRM on a sealed hardware platform is entirely different than DRM on a consumer controlled device, which is what the HTML5 DRM plugin interface hopes to achieve.
josteink 13y ago
Email the W3C. Tell them what you think of this bullshit (in reasonably polite manners). I've done it. I've gotten a non-canned response. But clearly they need more people at the gates bitching. This needs to be stopped.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  To their credit, the W3C are handling the level of interest in this very well indeed. Especially as many (myself included) have only passing familiarity with W3C process & protocol. But yeah, the more voices making clear, well-reasoned objections to this, the better. Especially if that might actually result in it going to a vote.
- krilnon 13y ago
  "they need more people at the gates" Their Cambridge office is indeed in the Gates tower of building 32. But the "gates" are sliding glass doors.
shmerl 13y ago
> So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. Which reads as: studios have nonsensical requirements, which are implemented and soon broken. And "we" (i.e. W3C) need to oblige this insanity for the sake of <...>. Put your own reason, but I bet it won't be good.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  I just posted to the list, trying to explain that EME is not a requirement, it is an implementation.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    I understand. My point is, it's an implementation of an absurd requirement which simply should be ignored, rather than obliged as in providing an implementation.
simonsarris 13y ago
I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or suffered because of it: * Music is largely available DRM-free now, thanks to Amazon's MP3 store (at the least, I'm sure there are others) * For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell * Despite DRM, all of Netflix's original series House of Cards was available on The Pirate Bay within hours of release. This doesn't seem to hurt Netflix's wish to create more content, or police it more heavy-handedly. (Maybe they would if they could) For that matter, I think in the modern case every single time a business went DRM free it turned out OK. Isn't that right? In all modern cases, maybe after 2006-ish, DRM-free businesses were accompanied with an easy way to get the content online, and sales did not seem to suffer because at the end of the day piracy can appear (or be) shady and people (rightfully) don't trust shady websites, even The Pirate Bay with all of its popups. I wish we had better numbers. I would like to see a real analysis on all the reasons people don't pirate and instead buy on Steam. I wish there was a good way to convince media businesses at large. But I guess this is all water under the bridge, and I'm preaching to the choir.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Steam can't be considered DRM free in many cases, for example because they don't let you backing up installers / packages, so if the service closes down you lose your collection. The only completely DRM-free gaming distributor is GOG. Humble Bundle and Desura are mixed. You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the quality of their products in a sense of improved usability, because any DRM means a crippled product (i.e. limited platforms availability, inability to make backups and etc. and etc.). The problem is, that most legacy publishers are rarely customer focused and think that DRM helps their profits. And unprincipled distributors like Netflix are ready to oblige. But the irony is, those publishers only hurt themselves by continuing using DRM. It's mostly innovative publishers, or self published studios (and crowdfunded projects) that have common sense and avoid using DRM. Luckily some distributors are also principled enough to reject DRMed products from publishers. But such are a minority still.
aquanext 13y ago
Can't we just boycott this entirely?
dschleef 13y ago
Compliance rules for Microsoft Playready: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ The encryption part of DRM systems is effectively the same as client-side SSL certificates with a secret SSL certificate. How well it's kept secret is defined in the compliance documents. This secret, plus a secure decoding and output path, are the engineering core of DRM systems. Studios require "industry standard DRM" for movies and TV shows, with lesser requirements for SD. This effectively means "DRM backed by some entity with lots of money that we can sue if things go wrong". Studios approve each individual device that you serve to, usually with compliance targets at some particular future date for various existing loopholes. Flash (Adobe Access) is somewhat different, and has an obfuscated method for generating the equivalent of a client cert, thus on laptops it's only rated for SD by most (all?) studios. Apparently studios don't care too much about people copying SD content. Studios would theoretically approve watermarking DRM systems, but there are two major barriers: having a large (ahem, suable) company offering it, and some way to serve individualized media through a CDN. Neither seem likely. So nobody loses too much sleep about whether studios would actually approve watermarking.
mcot2 13y ago
If our end result is to see Netflix using HTML5 video on Desktop browsers, how do we get there from a technology and business point of view? Keep in mind that Netflix has content created and owned by the major studios. If any form of DRM is not the way, than what? How do we get to this end goal? Do we make streams 'free' to copy and rely more on the legal system for protection? We are all keen to slam DRM, but what is a viable alternative?
- onion2k 13y ago
  There is no reason why the free and open standards of the internet should be compromised so that a particular business can operate on it. If DRM-free HTML video makes it so that Netflix can't develop a browser based viewer, so be it. The internet is bigger, and considerably more important, than streaming movies.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > If our end result is to see Netflix using HTML5 video on Desktop browsers, how do we get there from a technology and business point of view Where's the specific value in that? Netflix can use their own application to display the DRM-ridden content. I don't see why everyone else should have to deal with DRM in the browser because of that.
Daiz 13y ago
This should really be at the top of every HTML DRM discussion: HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse. Some vendors will keep pushing for it, but at the very least we should not officially sanction what they are doing.
- xyjztr 13y ago
  Hey Guys, can somebody create a simple guide, FAQ or something similar for non-tech people to understand what is going on with HTML and DRM? It will help to spread the word.
- talmand 13y ago
  But that's the solution you would want, a plugin. That way the DRM is not part of every browser being made, it's an add-on that individuals can decline to install. Content providers want this and they will eventually get it, one way or another. If they don't get their plugin then they'll go with their deep pockets to demand laws that require all browsers to have this tech by default, without your choice. Which would lead to browsers either complying or removing the media elements.
  - fafner 13y ago
    What you are saying is just ridiculous. Adding DRM to HTML5 will destroy the open web and not preserve it. First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the spec in their latest IE and it doesn't work with plugins at all. They ship Microsoft's DRM technology as the one and only available DRM. Which is perfectly fine according to the spec. So do you understand? This moves DRM into the browser and not into a plugin. The plugin thing was what we had with Flash and Silverlight. Those things were plugins which are not part of the browser (well except Google decided to make Flash part of Chrome). There could be no law to force browser vendors to ship DRM. It would not be legally possible. It is silly to think so. And if it gets proposed we can fight it then. We don't have to bend over backwards now to take the DRM bullshit that vile companies like Google are proposing. If content providers want DRM then they can develop their own crappy DRM plugins and applications. But they should under no circumstances be allowed to ruin the open web.
xyjztr 13y ago
Hey Guys, can somebody create a simple guide, FAQ or something similar for non-tech people to understand what is going on with HTML and DRM? It will help to spread the word.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Actually there's talk on the W3 mailing list of doing just that, covering all the info and debates that have happened to date. I'll post it to HN when / if it's done.
- hsivonen 13y ago
  https://hsivonen.fi/eme/ https://hsivonen.fi/eme/ explains what EME is. Granted, it might not explain "what is going on".
pyalot2 13y ago
HTML-DRM, proudly building "solutions" to problems nobody has, by following requirements nobody knows about, to create a landscape of content nobody can play. Way to go W3C, keep up the "good" work.
static_typed 13y ago
Simple question: why do the muppets at W3 pervert the open Web to suit the content barons flailing business model, and should we as a community be looking to fork and abandon at this point for truly open standards on the Web, and a committee with members who possess the vital criteria of both backbone and the awareness of a little word called 'No', both of which they can use against the content tards when they come knocking. And to all those who complain "but, I want drm, I want my Netflix" - Fuck you.
jlebrech 13y ago
why can't they just build it in NaCl and leave the open standard alone.
- hsivonen 13y ago
  In that case, the site providing DRMed video and the NaCl player would have distribute an H.264 decoder (and potentially other encumbered stuff) to end users as part of a NaCl executable. It's much more convenient for a company like Netflix not to have to distribute the DRM component when companies like Microsoft and Google are willing to do it instead. Also, NaCl doesn't integrate with the HTML media elements, you'd need to implement the whole media stack in NaCl instead of just the DRM part. Furthermore, since NaCl is sandboxed by the browser (and the browser is untrusted by Hollywood in the DRM trust model), it can't conspire with the GPU on low enough a level to hide pixels from the browser and the operating system.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Here are some thoughts by Cory Doctorow on web DRM. Spoiler: he's not a fan. http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/we-are-huxleying-ourselves-into-the-full-orwell http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/w...
alkonaut 13y ago
The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. But if a plugin framework is standardized, why settle for only DRM? Why not fix the whole crapfest that is plugin applications entirely? A standardized interface to a fast sandboxed virtual machine with good hardware support would be excellent. Currently there is javascript, ActiveX, flash, java applets, Silverlight, NaCl, WebGL and a number of others, each having their own benefits and drawbacks. If I want to write a web based multi-threadced GPU accelerated webcam-using application that works on any compliant browser on any platform, what do I do? Isn't that what the next kind of web standards should be addressing?
- eurleif 13y ago
  >multi-threadced Web workers? >GPU accelerated WebGL? >webcam-using WebRTC?
- fafner 13y ago
  > The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. Please read the spec. Your assumption is wrong! The EME just defines an API for JavaScript to access an unspecified CDM (the DRM module) in the browser. It does not specify how the DRM should work (it would be by definition impossible). It does not specify how a browser should acquire or handle the CDM. Therefore EME will not only ruin the open Web. But it will be less portable than Flash. At least Flash somehow works on Linux.
  - alkonaut 13y ago
    You misunderstood me, I think if there should be standardization of some kind of platform indepndent "plugin" it should address what flash, applets, ActiveX and Silverlight does but in a standardized way.
    - 13y ago
hbbio 13y ago
Looks like the W3C may have been the inspiration for Games of Thrones... Seriously, if there are men and women of honor in this organization, they should stand up against any form of standardization for DRM. DRM can be a proprietary extension for the people who want it.
andybak 13y ago
A key paragraph: link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0066.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2... Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that EME is a good fit with the Open Web: - 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users copying data streams - they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the agreements are confidential) - their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable client components - all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking, client-side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict (the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that we have done a poor job of determining requirements. Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential. And that sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right here.
- RexRollman 13y ago
  Well, my question is does HTML even need to encompass everything it does. It seems to me that we have an ever expanding monster. HTML does not have to be everything for everyone.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I thought that was more-or-less what was being discussed. My understanding was that the media element being accessed would not play the stream unless a specified DRM component was available, most often due to a plugin installed to the browser. It wasn't that they wanted DRM in the open web, they wanted the open web to have the ability to communicate with a third-party DRM. A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate. A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.
ronaldx 13y ago
Why is W3C involved in this? Not only does this create a lack of openness and transparency in the core of the web, but "big content" creators get to pass on the costs of DRM that nobody else benefits from, including to people who are not consuming their content. Meanwhile, browser vendors will become uncompetitive - since nobody else can compete against a closed standard - and they become even more motivated to work against openness to maintain their existing oligarchy. Could not be worse for the web.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
From the mailing list: "[with EME] ... the publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms may access their content." That was from one of the proponents of EME, touting this as a good thing. The response from another list regular was excellent: "In non-web-terms this is the publishers deciding on what brands of TV you're allowed to play their content." That's where EME will take the Open Web. We need to oppose it, strongly, urgently.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
drivingmenuts 13y ago
Since many are using Steam as an example of DRM - the important difference is that Steam is a free product, but is not open-source (though it can be used to distribute open-source). It is produced by a company as a means of distributing their products. It is not even a valid comparison to the blinkard pig ignorance of the secret DRM requirements in HTML, which is an open standard. I'd just like to know what dipshit at the W3 signed off on this.
silveira 13y ago
HTML6 = HTML5 - DRM
Fasebook 13y ago
The internet was nice while it lasted.
pjakma 13y ago
I download movies and TV shows using Bittorrent and index sites like TBP because of DRM. Often these DRM systems are not available for Linux, or if they are, they require installing some big blob of binary code. It is easier and more secure for me to use bittorrent. I would happily use the legal services, if not for this DRM. Those services sometimes are even free (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I would happily pay for a subscription service (I pay subscriptions to a number of different of online sites, mostly journalism or data-organistion - I've no problem with that). The industry standardising proprietary DRM in W3 will just ensure that I continue to support the distributed, end-user provided services which are DRM-free.

597 points by duncan_bayne 13y ago

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0060.html

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

duncan_bayne 13y ago

It's worth mentioning that the CEO of the W3C, Jeff Jaffe, is trying to rectify that: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0067.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2...

duncan_bayne 13y ago
... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far without the requirements being public.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  It's not that surprising, given it started off with a proposal of the spec. I mean, it was basically stated that among other things a secure path to the external hardware (like HDCP) was needed, and the actual DRM itself isn't specified anywhere.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Yeah, that should have been a warning sign. The thing that really set off my spidey senses was folks on the list saying "if you have a better idea than EME + CDM, please propose it", then all proposals being shot down. The whole thing looks rather suspicious to me, hence my attempt to back it up a level of abstraction to the actual requirements.
- wmf 13y ago
  There are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf (see Exhibit E on p. 90) In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convinced them that he'd make them enough money to make up for any piracy that iTMS allowed. Likewise Windows XP did not meet Blu-ray's "bag of hurt" robustness requirements but they made an exception because no one was running Vista and Hollywood presumably cared more about their movies being playable on computers than about the piracy that XP would allow. Of course, this doesn't help free software people who aren't willing to negotiate and would be starting from a very weak position even if they were.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are very willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here. It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents. EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.
    - wmf 13y ago
      Free software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        Can you even name any other class of software that cannot work unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even read the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.

girvo 13y ago

Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

Touche 13y ago
It will work under Google Chrome (not Chromium) on Linux most likely, as Google is a DRM vendor.
- cpeterso 13y ago
  And Google will presumably have a Linux CDM for Chrome OS, so they could release it for Linux desktop, too.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    But it doesn't matter. Google could release their CDM for any operating system they choose; it doesn't alter the fact that EME and CDM are inimical to the Open Web and should be rejected by the W3C.
- wmf 13y ago
  AFAIK ChromeOS supports Widevine EME and Chrome does not. Why is it enabled on one platform and not the other? Make of that what you will.
  - bzbarsky 13y ago
    Because they haven't got it locked down enough yet, presumably. Chrome on Android doesn't support it either, yet, but http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=275989 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=275989 is targeted for Chrome 32...
code_duck 13y ago
They're going to have to create ways to play their media on Linux, with the growing popularity of the OS for appliances such as living room video players and products like the Steam Machine.

alexnking 13y ago

Maybe instead of getting everyone to adopt Silverlight, we could just make the web more like Silverlight. Like more closed and stuff, because movies!

viraptor 13y ago
Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM. It's a web content runtime similar to flash. Sure, some codecs exposed through the runtime on a windows machine supported DRM. But silverlight itself has as much to do with DRM as http that was used to transport that content.
- beagle3 13y ago
  > Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM You are technically correct ("The best kind of correct"). However, the only places where Silverlight still enjoys any use is, as far as I can tell, in streaming services to PC and Mac (e.g. Netflix) - and in those places, the only reason they preferred Silverlight to Flash or HTML5 video is .. DRM. So practically, Silverlight is on life support maintained by DRM. If e.g. Netflix decides to drop DRM, you can bet they will stop using Silverlight and switch to something more portable (e.g. Flash or HTML5 video). Statistically, Silverlight use has everything to do with DRM. (weak analogy: Guns don't have anything to do with causing bodily damage. They just shoot projectiles at high speeds. In this thread, we are discussing personal safety)
- ericd 13y ago
  If Silverlight is predominantly used for that reason (which I believe it is and http is not at all), it's a fair characterization.

TempleOSV2 13y ago

God is perfectly just. Steal, get stolen from. Fuck with somebody get punished. Suffer, get rewarded. God says... I'm_grieved Is_that_your_final_answer strip what_luck et_tu bizarre impossible couldn't_be_better lift no_way_dude enough_said it's_my_world exorbitant ---- I have God on my side. I have complete confidence in justice. God claimed Deep Water Horizon.

belluchan 13y ago

Can't we just fork the w3? Start using Firefox and forget about these people. Oh I'm sorry your browser is a little slower, but at least it's not Google made.

magicalist 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mozilla is a W3C member organization. Perhaps you're thinking of something like the WHATWG? (bad news for you on the Google front if it is)
gsnedders 13y ago
Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born. The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specified than ever, and more interoperable than ever, but it's been a long, hard journey there. Consider the spec has been worked on for over a decade now. Respecifying, from scratch, large parts of the web platform is an incredibly large undertaking, especially ensuring the spec defines something compatible with almost all web content when browsers frequently disagree in edge-cases with up-until-now unspecified behaviour.
- etherealG 13y ago
  are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf
  - petercooper 13y ago
    The background on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/ and rationale: http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences

rlx0x 13y ago

This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI/HDCP is broken beyond repair. And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?! This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a propertary OS (windows) and buying a stream everytime I want to watch something if I can just download a release and watch it, and its not like they can do anything against that either. Why should I bother and buy HDCP capable new hardware, bother with proprietary NSA-compliant US software I much rather buy the DVD, trash it and just download it in a open and free format (I don't even bother with ripping (and breaking CSS) anymore).

gsnedders 13y ago
What are they thinking? The majority of the W3C membership want this work done, and the W3C is ultimately bound by its membership. Not working on this isn't an option — take the W3C out of the picture and it'll still be done, quite probably behind closed doors, which is even worse for the web; MS, Apple, and Google are all likely going to ship this whether the W3C specifies this or not; for better or for worse, it is likely to become part of the de-facto Web Platform. And if you read the lists (as opposed to overly emotional hearsay calling them stupid), you'll realize their concern isn't so much piracy in and of itself (they recognize DRM can and will be broken — they aren't blind), but rather "casual piracy", as it were, ripping a disc having had it lent to you, for example. The aim is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to work-around that that doesn't happen, not that it avoids release on P2P networks and the like.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  Are you sure about that? The majority of the W3C membership is staying pretty quiet about it, at least on the list. Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows? And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?

kevin_bauer 13y ago

I guess, the "another backdoor" proposal will go very well in Europe, where most citizens are just static about americas view on privacy and respect for constitutional rights. Way to go, maybe the W3C will finally get Europe and the rest of the "free" world to create their own web!

Zigurd 13y ago

Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?

duncan_bayne 13y ago
There are several technical reasons why EME is superior to the existing solutions; in particular, usability and ease of implementation are two. However that doesn't address the fundamental problem that EME breaks the Open Web.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  I could sort of get "ease of implementation" but would trade that on behalf of the implementers to keep their secret bullshit out of standards. Have they got an actual case that says it's easier versus plug-in implementations that would, in real world cases, rely on libraries the content publishers agree to use?
  - yk 13y ago
    Yes, malware. EME creates a nice standard compatible way for bidirectional communication with arbitrary servers, for native code run with the privileges of the user. ( By now there is at least a security considerations section in their standard... what could possibly go wrong.)
gsnedders 13y ago
EME essentially defines a wrapper around a module, which can quite easily be a plugin, that implements the DRM. You can view it as a means to require smaller plugins than NPAPI, PPAPI, etc.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  So, why have that discussion inside a standards discussion, especially if it brings in confidentiality requirements? Let the publishers talk among themselves and write their plug-ins.

dreamdu5t 13y ago

What's the problem? Don't support companies that distribute any DRM content. Standardizing DRM and propogating DRM aren't the same thing.

higherpurpose 13y ago
It sure helps propagating it, once you have a standard all the vendors can use.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  But all this standardises is the interop between the browser and the non-user-modifiable client component, the CDM.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Any standard makes it less messy and gives them more excuses to continue pushing it instead of admitting that it should be dropped. It's absurd to promote standards for unethical practices.
    - duncan_bayne 13y ago
      Yes. Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining things in my previous post. I was just trying to say that EME being standardised won't actually help standardise CDMs.
shmerl 13y ago
Standardizing DRM is bad because it prolongs its usage and makes it easier to apply. DRM shouldn't be helped in any way. It should be made harder to use for those with bad intentions who wish to proliferate it, not easier. The problem with avoiding is, that many don't understand why they should vote with their wallets and boycott Netflix, Steam and other similar services which proliferate DRM. Many readily and gladly use them. Either because they don't understand the unethical nature of it, or because they are getting used to the police state mentality, which they accept for the price of getting some service. Unfortunately, the later seems to be the case more and more.

Nursie 13y ago

Great. DRM. The best example of shooting yourself in the foot ever. Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along. Intended effect - No Piracy Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their products become and the better piracy looks in comparison. Pirates don't only beat the legit industry on price, they beat them on quality and availability. How can the industry allow this to stand? Let alone continue down the same path with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!?!

byuu 13y ago
The DRM is becoming increasingly complex and elaborate, and taking longer and longer to fully crack. Compare PS2 to PS3 crack times, for instance. The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight filler tracks. But as far as music and movies go, the genie's already out of the bottle: even with unbreakable DRM, we can always fall back on old camcorders / capture cards and microphones to make lossy copies. I think most pirates will tolerate a bit of quality loss if it saves them heaps of cash. I think they will ultimately succeed in game DRM that remains unbreakable for the entire duration of a game's market viability, though. Especially with required online connectivity components. But only time will tell.
- shmerl 13y ago
  DRM was and always will be pointless and insulting, no matter how elaborate it will become. Because it's not the right way to treat customers.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  DRM on a sealed hardware platform is entirely different than DRM on a consumer controlled device, which is what the HTML5 DRM plugin interface hopes to achieve.

josteink 13y ago

Email the W3C. Tell them what you think of this bullshit (in reasonably polite manners). I've done it. I've gotten a non-canned response. But clearly they need more people at the gates bitching. This needs to be stopped.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
To their credit, the W3C are handling the level of interest in this very well indeed. Especially as many (myself included) have only passing familiarity with W3C process & protocol. But yeah, the more voices making clear, well-reasoned objections to this, the better. Especially if that might actually result in it going to a vote.
krilnon 13y ago
"they need more people at the gates" Their Cambridge office is indeed in the Gates tower of building 32. But the "gates" are sliding glass doors.

shmerl 13y ago

> So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. Which reads as: studios have nonsensical requirements, which are implemented and soon broken. And "we" (i.e. W3C) need to oblige this insanity for the sake of <...>. Put your own reason, but I bet it won't be good.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
I just posted to the list, trying to explain that EME is not a requirement, it is an implementation.
- shmerl 13y ago
  I understand. My point is, it's an implementation of an absurd requirement which simply should be ignored, rather than obliged as in providing an implementation.

simonsarris 13y ago

I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works. ~~~ I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification. There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or suffered because of it: * Music is largely available DRM-free now, thanks to Amazon's MP3 store (at the least, I'm sure there are others) * For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell * Despite DRM, all of Netflix's original series House of Cards was available on The Pirate Bay within hours of release. This doesn't seem to hurt Netflix's wish to create more content, or police it more heavy-handedly. (Maybe they would if they could) For that matter, I think in the modern case every single time a business went DRM free it turned out OK. Isn't that right? In all modern cases, maybe after 2006-ish, DRM-free businesses were accompanied with an easy way to get the content online, and sales did not seem to suffer because at the end of the day piracy can appear (or be) shady and people (rightfully) don't trust shady websites, even The Pirate Bay with all of its popups. I wish we had better numbers. I would like to see a real analysis on all the reasons people don't pirate and instead buy on Steam. I wish there was a good way to convince media businesses at large. But I guess this is all water under the bridge, and I'm preaching to the choir.

shmerl 13y ago
Steam can't be considered DRM free in many cases, for example because they don't let you backing up installers / packages, so if the service closes down you lose your collection. The only completely DRM-free gaming distributor is GOG. Humble Bundle and Desura are mixed. You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the quality of their products in a sense of improved usability, because any DRM means a crippled product (i.e. limited platforms availability, inability to make backups and etc. and etc.). The problem is, that most legacy publishers are rarely customer focused and think that DRM helps their profits. And unprincipled distributors like Netflix are ready to oblige. But the irony is, those publishers only hurt themselves by continuing using DRM. It's mostly innovative publishers, or self published studios (and crowdfunded projects) that have common sense and avoid using DRM. Luckily some distributors are also principled enough to reject DRMed products from publishers. But such are a minority still.

aquanext 13y ago

Can't we just boycott this entirely?

dschleef 13y ago

Compliance rules for Microsoft Playready: http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/ The encryption part of DRM systems is effectively the same as client-side SSL certificates with a secret SSL certificate. How well it's kept secret is defined in the compliance documents. This secret, plus a secure decoding and output path, are the engineering core of DRM systems. Studios require "industry standard DRM" for movies and TV shows, with lesser requirements for SD. This effectively means "DRM backed by some entity with lots of money that we can sue if things go wrong". Studios approve each individual device that you serve to, usually with compliance targets at some particular future date for various existing loopholes. Flash (Adobe Access) is somewhat different, and has an obfuscated method for generating the equivalent of a client cert, thus on laptops it's only rated for SD by most (all?) studios. Apparently studios don't care too much about people copying SD content. Studios would theoretically approve watermarking DRM systems, but there are two major barriers: having a large (ahem, suable) company offering it, and some way to serve individualized media through a CDN. Neither seem likely. So nobody loses too much sleep about whether studios would actually approve watermarking.

mcot2 13y ago

If our end result is to see Netflix using HTML5 video on Desktop browsers, how do we get there from a technology and business point of view? Keep in mind that Netflix has content created and owned by the major studios. If any form of DRM is not the way, than what? How do we get to this end goal? Do we make streams 'free' to copy and rely more on the legal system for protection? We are all keen to slam DRM, but what is a viable alternative?

onion2k 13y ago
There is no reason why the free and open standards of the internet should be compromised so that a particular business can operate on it. If DRM-free HTML video makes it so that Netflix can't develop a browser based viewer, so be it. The internet is bigger, and considerably more important, than streaming movies.
lazyjones 13y ago
> If our end result is to see Netflix using HTML5 video on Desktop browsers, how do we get there from a technology and business point of view Where's the specific value in that? Netflix can use their own application to display the DRM-ridden content. I don't see why everyone else should have to deal with DRM in the browser because of that.

Daiz 13y ago

This should really be at the top of every HTML DRM discussion: HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse. Some vendors will keep pushing for it, but at the very least we should not officially sanction what they are doing.

xyjztr 13y ago
Hey Guys, can somebody create a simple guide, FAQ or something similar for non-tech people to understand what is going on with HTML and DRM? It will help to spread the word.
talmand 13y ago
But that's the solution you would want, a plugin. That way the DRM is not part of every browser being made, it's an add-on that individuals can decline to install. Content providers want this and they will eventually get it, one way or another. If they don't get their plugin then they'll go with their deep pockets to demand laws that require all browsers to have this tech by default, without your choice. Which would lead to browsers either complying or removing the media elements.
- fafner 13y ago
  What you are saying is just ridiculous. Adding DRM to HTML5 will destroy the open web and not preserve it. First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the spec in their latest IE and it doesn't work with plugins at all. They ship Microsoft's DRM technology as the one and only available DRM. Which is perfectly fine according to the spec. So do you understand? This moves DRM into the browser and not into a plugin. The plugin thing was what we had with Flash and Silverlight. Those things were plugins which are not part of the browser (well except Google decided to make Flash part of Chrome). There could be no law to force browser vendors to ship DRM. It would not be legally possible. It is silly to think so. And if it gets proposed we can fight it then. We don't have to bend over backwards now to take the DRM bullshit that vile companies like Google are proposing. If content providers want DRM then they can develop their own crappy DRM plugins and applications. But they should under no circumstances be allowed to ruin the open web.

xyjztr 13y ago

Hey Guys, can somebody create a simple guide, FAQ or something similar for non-tech people to understand what is going on with HTML and DRM? It will help to spread the word.

duncan_bayne 13y ago
Actually there's talk on the W3 mailing list of doing just that, covering all the info and debates that have happened to date. I'll post it to HN when / if it's done.
hsivonen 13y ago
https://hsivonen.fi/eme/ https://hsivonen.fi/eme/ explains what EME is. Granted, it might not explain "what is going on".

pyalot2 13y ago

HTML-DRM, proudly building "solutions" to problems nobody has, by following requirements nobody knows about, to create a landscape of content nobody can play. Way to go W3C, keep up the "good" work.

static_typed 13y ago

Simple question: why do the muppets at W3 pervert the open Web to suit the content barons flailing business model, and should we as a community be looking to fork and abandon at this point for truly open standards on the Web, and a committee with members who possess the vital criteria of both backbone and the awareness of a little word called 'No', both of which they can use against the content tards when they come knocking. And to all those who complain "but, I want drm, I want my Netflix" - Fuck you.

jlebrech 13y ago

why can't they just build it in NaCl and leave the open standard alone.

hsivonen 13y ago
In that case, the site providing DRMed video and the NaCl player would have distribute an H.264 decoder (and potentially other encumbered stuff) to end users as part of a NaCl executable. It's much more convenient for a company like Netflix not to have to distribute the DRM component when companies like Microsoft and Google are willing to do it instead. Also, NaCl doesn't integrate with the HTML media elements, you'd need to implement the whole media stack in NaCl instead of just the DRM part. Furthermore, since NaCl is sandboxed by the browser (and the browser is untrusted by Hollywood in the DRM trust model), it can't conspire with the GPU on low enough a level to hide pixels from the browser and the operating system.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

Here are some thoughts by Cory Doctorow on web DRM. Spoiler: he's not a fan. http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/we-are-huxleying-ourselves-into-the-full-orwell http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/w...

alkonaut 13y ago

The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. But if a plugin framework is standardized, why settle for only DRM? Why not fix the whole crapfest that is plugin applications entirely? A standardized interface to a fast sandboxed virtual machine with good hardware support would be excellent. Currently there is javascript, ActiveX, flash, java applets, Silverlight, NaCl, WebGL and a number of others, each having their own benefits and drawbacks. If I want to write a web based multi-threadced GPU accelerated webcam-using application that works on any compliant browser on any platform, what do I do? Isn't that what the next kind of web standards should be addressing?

eurleif 13y ago
>multi-threadced Web workers? >GPU accelerated WebGL? >webcam-using WebRTC?
fafner 13y ago
> The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. Please read the spec. Your assumption is wrong! The EME just defines an API for JavaScript to access an unspecified CDM (the DRM module) in the browser. It does not specify how the DRM should work (it would be by definition impossible). It does not specify how a browser should acquire or handle the CDM. Therefore EME will not only ruin the open Web. But it will be less portable than Flash. At least Flash somehow works on Linux.
- alkonaut 13y ago
  You misunderstood me, I think if there should be standardization of some kind of platform indepndent "plugin" it should address what flash, applets, ActiveX and Silverlight does but in a standardized way.
  - 13y ago

hbbio 13y ago

Looks like the W3C may have been the inspiration for Games of Thrones... Seriously, if there are men and women of honor in this organization, they should stand up against any form of standardization for DRM. DRM can be a proprietary extension for the people who want it.

andybak 13y ago

A key paragraph: link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0066.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2... Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that EME is a good fit with the Open Web: - 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users copying data streams - they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the agreements are confidential) - their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable client components - all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking, client-side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict (the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that we have done a poor job of determining requirements. Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential. And that sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right here.

RexRollman 13y ago
Well, my question is does HTML even need to encompass everything it does. It seems to me that we have an ever expanding monster. HTML does not have to be everything for everyone.
- talmand 13y ago
  I thought that was more-or-less what was being discussed. My understanding was that the media element being accessed would not play the stream unless a specified DRM component was available, most often due to a plugin installed to the browser. It wasn't that they wanted DRM in the open web, they wanted the open web to have the ability to communicate with a third-party DRM. A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate. A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.

ronaldx 13y ago

Why is W3C involved in this? Not only does this create a lack of openness and transparency in the core of the web, but "big content" creators get to pass on the costs of DRM that nobody else benefits from, including to people who are not consuming their content. Meanwhile, browser vendors will become uncompetitive - since nobody else can compete against a closed standard - and they become even more motivated to work against openness to maintain their existing oligarchy. Could not be worse for the web.

duncan_bayne 13y ago

From the mailing list: "[with EME] ... the publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms may access their content." That was from one of the proponents of EME, touting this as a good thing. The response from another list regular was excellent: "In non-web-terms this is the publishers deciding on what brands of TV you're allowed to play their content." That's where EME will take the Open Web. We need to oppose it, strongly, urgently.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

drivingmenuts 13y ago

Since many are using Steam as an example of DRM - the important difference is that Steam is a free product, but is not open-source (though it can be used to distribute open-source). It is produced by a company as a means of distributing their products. It is not even a valid comparison to the blinkard pig ignorance of the secret DRM requirements in HTML, which is an open standard. I'd just like to know what dipshit at the W3 signed off on this.

silveira 13y ago

HTML6 = HTML5 - DRM

Fasebook 13y ago

The internet was nice while it lasted.

pjakma 13y ago

I download movies and TV shows using Bittorrent and index sites like TBP because of DRM. Often these DRM systems are not available for Linux, or if they are, they require installing some big blob of binary code. It is easier and more secure for me to use bittorrent. I would happily use the legal services, if not for this DRM. Those services sometimes are even free (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I would happily pay for a subscription service (I pay subscriptions to a number of different of online sites, mostly journalism or data-organistion - I've no problem with that). The industry standardising proprietary DRM in W3 will just ensure that I continue to support the distributed, end-user provided services which are DRM-free.