EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5

by c-oreills • 13 years ago

361 273 13 years ago

eff.org

roopeshv• 13 years ago

Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on your website.

They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.

kunai4• 13 years ago

That's extremely narrow-minded.

First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like Firefox or Chromium won't be able to view any sites that push DRM at their will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't only affect web developers, it affects users, and the fact that you can't see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be honest.

Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML, CSS, and JavaScript -- have been open, and they should stay open. Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web too, not just the big organizations.

And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.

mwcampbell7• 13 years ago

Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with recent Google Chrome dev builds.

betterunix6• 13 years ago

This is kind of like saying, "The DVD CSS system is fine! You are not forced to use this DRM when you make a video DVD!" Why should the users be forced to deal with more of this nonsense?

The issue is not about websites it is about us. I do not want DRM on my computer, and I do not want to be excluded from the web as a result of that choice.

josephlord• 13 years ago

And equally you can use it even if it isn't in the standard.

mikeash8• 13 years ago

They are not making anyone use DRM against their will yet.

And then one day there's a government form you have to fill out, or a training video you have to watch, and it's behind some crazy DRM solution that the makers thought would be good to use, which was accepted because it's "standard".

jongraehl• 13 years ago

As long as people link to things that work on their browser, you are wrong.

kunai4• 13 years ago

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

http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html

zanny2• 13 years ago

Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open technology and they flounder into obscurity.

They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).

alipang5• 13 years ago

I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as long as government is too large to really care about the little guy.

Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as the US government or (to some extent) the EU.

Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way to get laws acted in your own best interest.

shmerl10• 13 years ago

You can start with boycotting any DRMed media.

bitwize• 13 years ago

The Web is going to get DRM one way or another.

Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.

kunai4• 13 years ago

> The Web is going to get DRM one way or another

Why should it have to?

betterunix6• 13 years ago

"The Web is going to get DRM one way or another."

Says who?

vetinari6• 13 years ago

And the difference between your two options is exactly what? Except that the first one is blessed by W3G?

mikeash8• 13 years ago

I vote for the hard way.

w1ntermute2• 13 years ago

So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.

ivanca4• 13 years ago

If those are the only options I vote for proprietary plugins; those are way easier to block.

wmf• 13 years ago

To be clear, EME is not really a standard agreed upon across vendors. It's more of a meta-standard. There will be no CDM that works in 90% of browsers, so EME would lead to fragmentation just as bad or worse than what we have today.

lambda• 13 years ago

The Web has DRM, implemented in proprietary plugins: Flash (and to a lesser degree, Silverlight).

And this proposal involves DRM implemented with proprietary plugins (known as CDMs). There is no requirement that CDMs be available across platforms, on open operating systems, available to license by any vendor. The CDMs are the new proprietary plugins, they just happen to do less than Flash, leaving more of it up to the browser.

Is it really so much better to trade one proprietary form of DRM for another? What does that actually get us? More crappy services, where Hollywood decides on a month by month basis which particular services get to offer its content, so you need to sign up for 5 different services just to watch all of the content that you watch? And each one of them supports different set-top boxes, doesn't work on open platforms, and restricts you from backing up media that you have bought?

This isn't improvement; this is just wanting to get browser vendors to implement anti-features that users object to, instead of getting Adobe to do it.

Drakim• 13 years ago

The worst part is that Flash and Java aren't going to go away anytime soon either. You basically have to have both, and the web will be a lot harder to navigate on anything but a Windows machine.

yzhengyu• 13 years ago

I am skeptical of any value in having "standards" agreed for this for consumers which would be any different from having third party plugins.

If you want your content to be protected, fine, you can go back to using third party plugins. Then users will have a clear choice on whether to consume your content.

belorn9• 13 years ago

DRM: Software with the intent to take control with force over someones else computer.

Sorry but there is nothing intrinsic valuable about DRM in the web, in the exact same way that any other form of malware is not intrinsic valuable to the web. Just because its current legal to offer media products with malware embedded, doesn't make it a logical choice to include in a web standard that describes an open web of cooperating nodes.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

The EME proposal by the W3C is specifically intended to enable just what you describe: proprietary plug-ins that only work in particular browsers.

One of the primary sponsors of the EME proposal is Netflix, who are already building exactly what you describe.

I've addressed this issue - a misconception that at least some on the W3C hold - in detail here:

http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi....

mtgx• 13 years ago

The DRM will change nothing about platform interoperability. If anything, it will probably make the situation worse.

For DRM to work, someone needs to control that DRM (which means plugins) - preferably as few people as possible. You can't really have "open DRM" or anything like that, which means "HTML5 DRM5" is completely inconsistent and conflictual with the values of the web, and what W3C is supposed to stand for.

The reason there even seems to be a side that is "pro HTML5 DRM" is because they think:

1) it will make Netflix and such really cross-platform

2) you won't have to use "nasty plugins" like Flash or Silverlight

But none of the two is really true. You will have plugins, they will just be at the OS level, and good luck getting Netflix to work on new operating systems such as Ubuntu Touch, Sailfish, FF OS, Tizen, and so on - unless the company behind them can make partnerships with the content companies or content distributors like Netflix.

alipang5• 13 years ago

Is it impossible to have an open DRM parametrized by some sort of secret key/cryptography/whatever?

Honest question.

shmerl10• 13 years ago

> The Web is going to get DRM one way or another.

Wrong. The Web already has DRM - Silverlight and other junk. The subject is about not dragging this garbage into the HTML standard.

> Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.

EME won't make DRM "easier" for users - it will still require closed source black box modules which will never work with open source browsers. It might make it easier for Netflix and co. who push this idiocy onto the web. But it's their problem, users and the Web should not oblige them with comfortable proliferation of unethical approaches. If anything it should be made harder, to give more incentives to avoid it.

vy8vWJlco• 13 years ago

You've hit it: standardization speeds proliferation, and there's no reason at all for the W3C to speed the proliferation of lock-in, effectively supporting a digital arms race.

There may be rationalizations for DRM by certain individuals or companies, just as there are "reasons" from warlords to expand their empires, but none of them necessarily benefit everyone justly. For that matter, there are straight-forward arguments that DRM cannot benefit everyone justly (for example, DRM prevents users from controlling their equipment, or it prevents innovation thereby distorting the market), and if it can't: why on earth is it worth promoting?

Saying DRM should be in HTML 5 is like saying the freedom to murder should be a human right. IMHO, both cross a line that make them (clearly) no longer objectively in the public interest.

The ability to embed plugins is as close to that line as necessary - and that has already been standardized. There is no reason to go farther than that and to proliferate a tool that is not in the public interest (for all intents and purposes a "weapon" against the public).

fafner2• 13 years ago

We can NOT do this the easy way! Please read the W3C proposal. The proposal is NOT an alternative to proprietary plug-ins but rather a proposal to introduce proprietary plug-ins into HTML5. DRM can't be free software because you could simply change it to write the data to your disk and recompile it.

This proposal is turning HTML5 into "New Flash" because the CDM will have to do the decoding and rendering of frames. This is not only dangerous to freedom but this is dangerous to all the achievements and advances in HTML5 and the web stack.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

jlgreco11• 13 years ago

Proprietary plugins sounds good to me. Working with nastier code will be their penance.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

That's incorrect. The proposed EME standard merely specifies the interop between Javascript and the CDM.

The CDM will in almost all cases be a platform-specific, proprietary, closed-source binary blob.

_Please_ do not buy in to the idea that including EME in HTML5 will reduce the platform dependence of DRM solutions.

miles• 13 years ago

Reminds me of this exchange between Dwight and Ryan on The Office:

---

Dwight: Okay, I’m going to need to search your car. Give me your keys.

Ryan: I am not giving you my keys.

Dwight: Don’t make me do this the hard way.

Ryan: What’s the hard way?

Dwight: I go down to the police station on my lunch break. I tell the police officer — I know several — what I suspect you may have in your car. He requests a hearing from a judge and obtains a search warrant. Once he has said warrant, he will drive over here and make you give him the keys to your car, and you will have to obey him.

Ryan: Yeah, let’s do it that way.

---

Note to Hollywood: Yeah, let's do it the hard way.

GhotiFish2• 13 years ago

that second way? that's the way I want.

I want that second way to hurt, alot. Alot alot.

I want the way DRM gets onto the web to be the same vector malware gets onto computers. I want this to suck for DRM, it should suck. It should be painful to give up your rights. It SHOULD hurt.

mythz3• 13 years ago

This objection, does a solution not help make.

mikeash8• 13 years ago

Sure it does. "Don't" is a perfectly reasonable solution here. It won't satisfy all parties, but not all parties are worth satisfying.

mythz3• 13 years ago

The future of everyone being able to view online video (e.g. Netflix/Hulu/BBC) without a plugin is not getting anywhere closer.

chris_mahan5• 13 years ago

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

I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.

kunai4• 13 years ago

...what?

That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive.

Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.

chris_mahan5• 13 years ago

What if netflix released its own browser, perhaps a fork of chromium, and all it could do was go to netflix and other such approved (read: drm-ready) sites that paid a fee to netflix?

And what if parents made that the default browser on the device? To protect the kids, of course.

Of course.

betterunix6• 13 years ago

"the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive"

So people who choose to use only free software will be excluded from large parts of the web. How is that a good outcome?

ivanca4• 13 years ago

That's the only natural evolution; for example the news sites will say:

"Why the movie industry have protection but we don't? We need HTML5 DRM in our writings, is our copyright less important than theirs? I say no sir!"

And slowly an internet where you can't use browser extensions, where you can't copy anything you read, where you depend on the existence of a company, a functional internet connection to play (just once) the content you bought, but a content that you certainly don't own.

chris_mahan5• 13 years ago

News sites would be all over that. Gaming websites too. Sports websites I imagine...

belorn9• 13 years ago

Thats just the start.

Create sites which you can't leave or close? Easy, use drm and prevent any action that would closing the tab or give access to the url bar.

DRM is code with the intention to take full control over a device after sale. With that, any action is possible. Installing tool-bars, sending browser history, stealing information. The only protection is the letter of the law, and any hacker brave enough to reverse engineer the drm to identify what it actually do (under the threat of DMCA and jail time of course).

taybenlor• 13 years ago

I feel like you're falling trap to the Slippery Slope fallacy

walid3• 13 years ago

The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both browsers are open source. HTML5 DRM will only stop people from using regular copy/paste.

I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.

ivanca4• 13 years ago

Yeah, only time will tell us if watching sitcoms on the browser is really worth to lose an open internet. </sarcasm>

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

The issue is that the CDMs with which the sites integrate simply won't be made available on certain platforms. E.g. Netflix isn't available on Linux, and there's no evidence that the availability of EME would change that.

fafner2• 13 years ago

That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the EFF is absolutely not over-reacting.

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

walid3• 13 years ago

I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company, namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser.

This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind.

To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?

walid3• 13 years ago

I disagree with all of you previous commentators. DRM in the browser already exists and it is called Flash. This is also the reason why Adobe is still supporting Flash and wants to bring it to other platforms other than the browser.

http://www.adobe.com/products/adobe-access.html

As for Netflix on Linux, they want to make money and will have to make it available if they want Linux customers. Remember that nothing is going to stop Netflix or anybody else from making their media incompatible with your setup, so the keys are already in their hands.

On the other hand demanding freedom and openness from organizations that only want to make money is useless. Just ask for your platform to be supported and pay them when they do. Otherwise no one is going to take a second look at you no matter how loud you shout.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here:

DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications.

This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself.

Some DRM implementations in the past have been so aggressive in their usurpation of control that they have qualified as malware; the Sony rootkit is a particularly egregious example of this.

DRM actively reduces the trustworthiness and security of all machines on which it is installed. It has to by design: its stated purpose is to restrict the capabilities of a general purpose computer.

alipang5• 13 years ago

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it.

To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

tolmasky• 13 years ago

> DRM allows you to voluntarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

Of course, and I think it is also fair for consumers to voluntarily protest DRM before it is placed on our devices by expressing our concerns, as opposed to afterward when we have to do so by voting with our wallets. I don't think its "my right" to have DRM-less devices, but I think all the criticisms about freedom and security are valid as long as they are meant to appeal to the producers by signaling our desires as consumers (this as opposed to for example suggesting there should be a law against DRM which I would be against). In theory the ideal would be for everyone to be on the same page before these decisions get made.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

> As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist

> society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer.

> Don't like it? Don't use it.

I agree, but there's more to it than that. From the W3C site:

"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web."

... and ...

"One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability."

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of a capitalist society, to lobby the W3C to refuse the addition of EME. It is inimical to their own stated goals (there are other conflicts too; see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html for details).

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the initiation of force. Companies should be free to build their own DRM systems, and others to use or not use them as they choose.

But the W3C should have no part of that, and the HTML5 standard should not be crippled by the inclusion of DRM.

Another angle to consider is our cultural heritage. More and more of that is moving to the Web; if we tie it up with DRM, bitrot will mean that in a generation or two most of it will be inaccessible.

jlgreco11• 13 years ago

> Don't like it? Don't use it.

...and also feel free to complain about it. ...which is what he is doing.

I have never understood responses such as yours. No part of being able to vote with your money means that you should only vote with your money. Capitalism does not mean that people shouldn't complain.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

> I don't see how DRM is incompatible with their goals.

From my post on their blog (I'd link there, but their anchors are broken):

DRM is software that is designed to restrict a user from playing content on certain devices, in certain ways, and in certain locations. I think that is the very definition of a walled garden. I genuinely do not understand how you believe that supporting DRM will elminate walled gardens.

In the best case we will have moved from an ad-hoc collection of walled gardens, to an ad-hoc collection of walled gardens with the support and moral endorsement of the W3C.

If your concern is genuinely to eliminate the need for apps, and the enclosue of content in walled gardens, why not use your considerable influence in opposition of DRM altogether?

"Frankly, I don't understand the question about insisting that compliant implementation respect geographic location. As a general rule, we don't provide conformance testing and have no way of insisting what people implement."

That was my point :). The W3Cs mission states that:

Breaking down that list, we see that DRM is inimical to several goals:

* hardware: DRM implementations are known for being hardware-locked; Netflix is the most prominent recent example, re. the ARM-based Chromebook

* software: existing DRM implementations are tied to specific browsers and operating systems

* geographical location: many (most?) DRM implementations implement geographical segregation (a.k.a. region encoding)

That is, by lending support to DRM, the W3C is helping to ensure that at least some web content is restricted by hardware, software, and geopgraphical location. This is in direct opposition to several of your stated goals.

AnthonyMouse2• 13 years ago

>DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

DRM doesn't allow you to do anything. It only restricts. Your argument is really that DRM would "allow" you to enter into arrangements you wouldn't otherwise be able to because Hollywood wouldn't be willing to take your money without it, which you have not proven. And you could say the same thing about a shock collar. If someone suggested it would be a good idea to fit everyone with a shock collar that would shock you if you did anything Hollywood didn't like, and (at first) you could opt out of the shock, but not the collar, and only by opting out of popular culture (or breaking the law), I hope you can imagine why the idea might not see a particularly warm reception regardless of how many movies Hollywood alleges they'll provide in exchange.

betterunix6• 13 years ago

"DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about."

Not when there are no (legal) machines without it. See: DVD players.

GhotiFish2• 13 years ago

As long as they're not the only game in town, right?

As long as DRM doesn't start getting mandated to function in society.

Frankly, take a look at the way Richard Stallman lives, the way he uses tech, sticking dogmatically to only free open source software.

Why should I have to live like that to not ceed control of every single device I have.

DRM is not opt-in. It's my way or the highway. That's a big difference.

nathan_long• 13 years ago

>> DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

Sometimes excluding an option creates better outcomes.

Example: you cannot become someone's lifelong slave in America, even if you voluntarily agree to it; The agreement is not legal. Not allowing you this option also protects you: if you could do it voluntarily, you could be coerced into volunteering ("well, I see you can't pay your bank loan...").

Here's a possible scenario with DRM: If media companies can easily DRM video on the web, they will. Soon nearly all video on the web will have it. Goodbye, video options.

Also, new browsers who can't make the business agreements to use the DRM will effectively not support video on the web. Which means nobody will use them. Goodbye, browser options.

Cutting off the DRM option preserves video and browser options. I say we voluntarily give up the possibility of DRM to preserve other possibilities.

>> Don't like it? Don't use it.

Exactly the message I'd give to media companies concerning the open web.

johnvschmitt2• 13 years ago

Good for EFF. DRM is futile.

There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell phone camera among other devices).

What we've seen is:

A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see illegitimate use grow.

B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up & protecting our rights & values in the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them.

Meaning: DRM all you want. Make it so that you can ONLY see Game of Thrones if you pay $100,000!!! Great! And, imagine how long it'd take for a copy (lower fidelity, sure) to get in the hands of a larger audience that you can't control, who doesn't like you, who you collect no $ from.

Or: Drop DRM, & go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that are EASY & fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make your next content even more appealing & marketable.

biot• 13 years ago

HBO should have a Kickstarter campaign for each episode of Game of Thrones. Donate any amount you want, and if the total funds raised is $75 million (or whatever HBO determines is the expected sales figure of the one episode for the next 25 years), HBO releases the DRM-free episode for free to everyone who wants a copy.

If the amount isn't reached, then the episode is never released. Repeat the process for each successive episode in each season.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

Netflix uses DRM, and is one of the sponsors of this attempt to add DRM to HTML5.

johnvschmitt2• 13 years ago

Yes, that's a shame. But: Netflix makes it easy & convenient. They are not the bad guy. They are really stuck between a rock & a hard place. (Between old school distributors of content (Hollywood), squeezing them for money to make sure they have no margin), and ISP's (Comcast, AT&T) who are saying, "Hey, Netflix is popular, >50% of bandwidth, so let's shake them down" (net neutrality needs to keep them from doing this).

Don't blame Netflix for that DRM behavior. They are the early innovator & they look after their customers. They are just squeezed so badly. If you support net neutrality & ban DRM, you'll see more convenient, customer-friendly companies thrive in that ecosystem. If you don't, you'll see only bad players (DRM+$$$$+inconvenience) playing content you like.

benatkin• 13 years ago

No, what's futile is this objection by the EFF. But I think it's a token gesture, so it probably doesn't bother them that much.

Anonazon• 13 years ago

I've really been disillusioned by EFF lately. It seems like they're more of a black hole of activist's dollars than anything productive. When I donate, I like my dollars to go to more productive and practical use (like FSF) than to support libertarian ideals wrapped in a feel good presentation.

ihsw3• 13 years ago

DRM isn't about stopping piracy and it never was. Don't get confused, it's not about consumers of content -- it's about distributors of content. It's to maintain control over who distributes what content, for how long, to whom, and at what price.

The laws restricting consumption of content are few and far, however the laws restricting distribution of content are many and broad-sweeping.

cynicalkane6• 13 years ago

The market problem is that people want to consume expensive art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.

I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question to me is whether DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible... or whether it will take over your devices with God-knows-what secret solutions, which is the situation today. I think the W3C standard is problematic (having read it) but represents a small step in the direction that is less wrong. The third option, an imaginary free-information utopia, is directly against the economic will of the people in general.

marshray• 13 years ago

If you're going to have that username you're not allowed to use terms like "the economic will of the people".

mwcampbell7• 13 years ago

Does this proposed W3C standard really get us any further away from taking over our devices with god-knows-what secret solutions? After all, the CDM plugins themselves are still proprietary.

cynicalkane6• 13 years ago

I think it's a case of pushing at the margin; exposing more details of the CDM plugins than would otherwise be exposed. Opening the CDM spec is also a design win for reasons that should be obvious to people who've worked on software.

It's been the general trend in web browsers to minimize the permissions you need to give to plugins--I would expect CDM plugins to evolve the same way.

ronaldx2• 13 years ago

It's not correct for W3C to enforce policies that are worth billions of dollars to big companies at the average user's expense.

eridius3• 13 years ago

That's the thing, though. It's not at the average user's expense. It's only at the technological idealist's expense. The average user is in fact benefited greatly by having an open, standardized approach, because it increases the likelihood that things will Just Work™.

shmerl10• 13 years ago

> the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.

You said it. DRM is close to censorship in its core idea - it's preemptive policing. The market will find routes around it.

> I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere.

Not true. There is a lot of opposition in principle to the totalitarian approach (which DRM embodies). If there would be no opposition, then it will work as "they take as much as you give them". I.e. if you don't value your own freedom, they for sure won't do that for you.

cynicalkane6• 13 years ago

It's true that people are routing around existing DRM solutions. It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM. As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one.

The average consumer will not try to route around unfree information as long as it shows up when they click play. Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.

bcoates3• 13 years ago

The enthusiasm against DRM is mostly based on principle because the technological argument is so uninteresting. "DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible" isn't possible and this is non-controversial among anyone not in the business of trying to sell it to someone who doesn't know that.

shmerl10• 13 years ago

> the platform is open

Where did you find an open DRM? It sounds oxymoronic.

cynicalkane6• 13 years ago

DRM is just a math problem (encryption) coupled with a hardware problem (retaining control of the results). The industry in, say, video games has settled on an equilibrium of making it very hard but not impossible to crack the hardware. But uncrackable encryption hardware already exists, it would just be inconvenient to make it uncrackable inside an XBox.

But whether the methods of DRM are open or closed is an implementation detail. Nobody thinks that TLS being open makes it crackable. But if users and programmers know the capabilities and requirements of DRM solutions, they can sequester them from the rest of the computer.

josteink7• 13 years ago

The enthusiasm against DRM is mostly based on principle because the technological argument is so uninteresting.

It's also based on the philosophical aspects of DRM.

Everything which digital technologies enables, DRM takes away. Every improvement enabled by new technology, DRM hinders. Everything which digital opens, DRM closes down.

DRM is artificially retro-fitting the limitations of the past into the future for no other sake than benefiting the already rich, with an added cost of taking control away from the people and handing it to the few.

DRM is digital ass backwards and has no place anywhere in this new century.

femto• 13 years ago

The real danger, from the W3C's perspective is that people will route around an HTML5 standard that includes DRM. What's the point of writing a standard that is built to fail?

jobu• 13 years ago

People hate DRM because it gives the content producers too much power, and then they treat consumers like muppets: http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_le...

The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get paid, but giving them full control of the pipe will end up harming everyone (producers included).

dorian-graph2• 13 years ago

I see people often saying to vote with your wallet and then go illegally download whatever movie, TV show, videogame or piece of software—which I find kind of funny. Why don't people vote with their time? Don't watch something, for example.

I suppose the main thing I find funny is how outrageous people become when something isn't provided which seems trivial to life. I live in Australia where it seems we are one of the nations the pirates the most. People here, and elsewhere, act as if having a TV show is a basic human right and necessity. Who cares if you can't watch a TV show? I think both sides are in the wrong. Another thing with the horse-riders yelling at some large fat cats is that they often pretend to speak for the masses; the non-hackers, -geeks, or whatever labels are necessary to delineate these two groups. They say they would buy everything if it was available in a way that jives with them and postulate that the masses will run out and buy everything.. and maybe they will, but as one of the 'computer guys' when most people ask about how to use torrents and you ask them why they want to know usually they just want to get something without paying for it. This goes back to Napster too.

This isn't so much directed at you, jobu, these thoughts just came to mind again after looking at the image you posted. I do agree with what's presented in the image in that it is a horrible user-experience.

shousper• 13 years ago

Perhaps we should workd on the economic will of the people..

belorn9• 13 years ago

So the options you are suggesting we have today is either a small number of solutions that take over your devices with God-knows-what but which are using browser plugin system, or solutions that take over your devices with God-knows-what but are using the W3C standard as an API, which leads to a larger number of God-knows-what solutions that do God-knows-what to your computer or has God-knows-what security issues that other form of malware can use.

How is that an improvement, and what does this have to do with a open network with cooperating nodes that any standard compliant software can parse and use?

bcoates3• 13 years ago

What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying involved in a post-DRM W3C?

It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

And start demanding the member organizations to make a public statement as to exactly how far the EME DRM standardization is allowed to advance before they will withdraw from the W3C.

cmircea• 13 years ago

I am not sure of the official position, but I seriously doubt Mozilla will EVER implement this. They've been opposing H.264, which is a lesser evil (patents) than outright DRM.

ihsw3• 13 years ago

Opposition is one thing, outright boycott and attacking the legitimacy of the W3C is something else. Frankly I think the latter is necessary.

blinker3• 13 years ago

They stopped opposing H.264 once they needed it for Firefox OS. I'd expect Mozilla to support the W3C DRM stuff as soon as someone makes Netflix a requirement for their Firefox OS phone. Maybe it won't be Mozilla but someone shipping Firefox OS will do the work. Then Mozilla will feel pressure to take the patch they provide. They're in a difficult position now that they're in the mobile phone OS market.

shmerl10• 13 years ago

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

ollysb• 13 years ago

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

tacticus• 13 years ago

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

VonGuard3• 13 years ago

OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix.

Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason.

Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dicks. They're listening to all sides.

Who cares if there's DRM in the spec, anyway? It doesn't mean people have to use it. And we all know it'll be cracked in a matter of SECONDS upon formal implementation.

jlgreco11• 13 years ago

Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary plugins. Why should we oblige them and dirty the standard in the process?

VonGuard3• 13 years ago

Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Open standards are a way to ensure no specific company has control over stuff like this.

dragonwriter3• 13 years ago

> Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary plugins.

I thought part of the reason for DRM-plugins-with-standardized-hooks-in-HTML is that it was the one particularly widely-used current use case for plugins that browser vendors weren't aiming to replace completely internally with HTML, CSS, and/or JS APIs, and switching to a standard mechanism for it would allow browser vendors to deprecate general purpose proprietary plugin mechanisms.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

> OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major

> reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix.

The W3Cs proposal will not bring NetFlix to Linux. What they - the W3C and Netflix - are proposing is a standardised interface between Javascript and CDMs.

CDM vendors, like Netflix, will be under no compulsion to provide CDMs for other platforms. And they won't.

holloway• 13 years ago

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

josteink7• 13 years ago

The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?

For now it does. But if we let it pass, you better believe that slippery slope we've went into is going to get a whole lot steeper.

The open web only has one option: Fighting DRM entirely and fundamentally. We don't need Netflix on the web, and definitely not at the cost of our fabulous, open standards' core values.

byuu• 13 years ago

For anyone else having problems loading the page, try Google's cached version here : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

ancarda• 13 years ago

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

blinker3• 13 years ago

Not supporting it would be bad for Firefox OS. It would mean that platform is locked out from streaming video solutions (ie. Netflix). This would discourage carriers from supporting Firefox OS. On desktop it doesn't matter so much. They have a marketshare to make a difference when they take a stand. However now that they're in the phone market, if no carrier will take Firefox OS due to the streaming video issue then the OS is dead before it really begins.

josteink7• 13 years ago

I think you generalize the absurd US cellular carrier situation on to the world.

Most places in the world you have carriers which provides phone services, accessible by a SIM-card, and you have phones, which accepts SIM cards.

These are two entirely separate things which you choose entirely at your own bidding. You chose the carrier which provides you with a service matching your needs at a price you are willing to pay. And you use the SIM card they provide in the phone you have chosen entirely separate.

In a world like this a carrier doesn't "support" a phone. That would be like my ISP having to "support" my Dell PC, or me having to buy a PC from a limited selection offered by my ISP. It's an absurd position.

Most of the world does not work like the completely and fundamentally broken US cellphone market, and generalizing based on that is doomed to reap highly inaccurate results.

dendory• 13 years ago

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

josteink7• 13 years ago

This DRM proposition definitely needs all the resistance it can get. We cannot allow DRM into our wonderful, open standards. This is not an option. Not at any price.

I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue. Have they issued any statements what so ever?

Seeing what amazing things the web have enabled the last few decades, purely by being open, who are we to deny the future the same possibilities by locking it all down now? What sort of short-sighted asshole would propose such a thing?

To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither.

If this goes through though, what I see others are calling out for is a new consortium. If the W3C is hellbent on forking and fragmenting the web, then lets have it. But let's have it on our terms: By creating a new open web standards consortium.

jiggy201117• 13 years ago

"Open standards" are about documenting interfaces in such a way as that any person could develop a compatible implementation, nothing more.

There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate.

This proposal simply describes a standard protocol for a DRM system to be able to talk to a web browser. If you don't want to use it, simply choose a browser that ships with it disabled or disable it yourself.

You're not going to lose access to your favorite sites because of this. The sites that would want to do this are already implementing paywalls or existing DRM systems.

josteink7• 13 years ago

There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate.

That's a bogus argument and misses the point completely.

That you have closed source systems deployed on the open web is completely OK. That you have closed sourced browsers interpeting markeup is also completely OK. As long as the markup and code produced and published is compliant to the open standards we have all agreed upon.

Because then anyone with the specification can interact with that content. That means that anyone, of any size, can sit down and implement a fully valid and compliant web-browser.

This latest proposal from W3C means an end to that. Having the HTML specification will not be enough to create software able to render all the content on the web. Your browser will need to be "sanctioned" and "supported" by the DRM-vendors in order to work on the web.

New platforms (FirefoxOS, Tizen, etc), new browsers, any new players at all and all open source endeavours are effectively shut out from this new web the W3C is drafting. That is unacceptable.

This is a disastrous departure from any former W3C specification and directly in opposition to the W3C's own mission statement.

We are only left to guess what sort of corruption has lead to W3C sinking this low. Whatever happened to allow this rot, a new consortium seems like a good way to solve it.

belorn9• 13 years ago

> Pretending that the web is some hippy utopia is not accurate.

A typical example of when a comment deserve a downvote. Calling the refusal of adding DRM to an open standard, a standard that is about a network of cooperating nodes that any standard compliant software can parse, is not an hippy utopia.

> The sites that would want to do this are already implementing paywalls or existing DRM systems.

The methods used by such systems are very limited. The same web functionality that DRM wants are the exact same ones constantly being limited to reduce malware. Even flash, which wants to allow arbitrary code are being phased out in favor of more precise html 5 functionality. DRM in the standard would be a direct step backward and open up more maleware, more arbitrary code execution, and more control by third-party of the computation of users devices.

pornel• 13 years ago

EME doesn't describe an interoperable standard. It's only a tiny JS interface for invoking proprietary, deliberately unspecified CDM plug-ins (that are protected by DMCA, so you can't use them even if you knew how).

It's as if you wrote spec for `<object classid='clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000'/>` tag and said Silverlight is now a W3C Recommendation.

That's even a step back from Silverlight today, because at least it has de-facto NPAPI standard interface that CDMs don't.

Systemic33• 13 years ago

By allowing DRM to become a standard, it will actually help the open web, because Linux users can then watch stuff like Netflix, HBO Nordic, etc which all use some closed source for displaying content, eg. Silverlight(Netflix) and Widevine (HBO). Currently its either a total hacky solution or impossible to use this on linux. Better have it standardized than a closed source restricted solution.

ferongr• 13 years ago

No they won't. I doubt Linux users could be able to use Linux CDMs to decrypt EME content because they probably won't be released.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

What you are saying is completely untrue. Please, read the EME proposal. It is a specification for interop between Javascript and closed-source, proprietary CDMs.

If there is one thing I wish that HN would understand from this entire discussion: EME will not get you Netflix on Linux!

Fuxy• 13 years ago

I would never use a browser that implements DRM. As the EFF stated DRM is a back box with the intent of taking control from the user so why the hell should i allow it in my computer.

If their content is so important to them they can keep it just stay the hell out of my browser.

I value my privacy more then i covet their content.

nileshtrivedi• 13 years ago

This is sort of like Linux kernel supporting a fixed ABI for binary modules. There are those who say that it's a good thing and benefits are more than the costs. And then there are those who say that this would be bad and it prevents us from going through a temporary struggle that would eventually lead to a better solution for the long-term.

I tend to favor the second camp. Let's not compromise on our vision for the open web. We have gone through a lot and have achieved a lot. A short-term hassle is acceptable for the long-term win.

Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we tolerate the intolerant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

JonoW2• 13 years ago

I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives. If EME is rejected and not added to the HTML spec, lets consider some alternatives:

1. Leave things as they are, so Flash and Silverlight limp along to serve DRMed content, and native apps are required to watch on devices which don't support plugins. Verdict: Not great, but hey it's how it is now.

2. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable

3. Lobby the media distributers (Netflix etc) to boycott media owners who won't drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable

4. Ask end-users to boycott purchase of un-DRMed content (and no pirate it, as they will only encourage the media owners to use more DRM). Verdict: Highly improbable. Us nerds may do it, but regular folk don't really care about DRM.

5. EME is implemented as a convention, but not in the official spec. Verdict: Possible, I think EME will be implemented in IE and Chrome with or without it being in the spec. Mozilla wouldn't I presume.

Can anyone think of any others?

Daiz2• 13 years ago

We leave things as they are. If content distributors refuse to play without DRM, let them stick to inconvenient existing plugins. The DRM-insisting gatekeepers will ultimately need the web more than the web needs them, so they'll have to concede eventually, even if it takes a good while before it happens.

jiggy201117• 13 years ago

Why do they need the web? If the only way to watch Game of Thrones is to install a standalone application then people will simply install the standalone application.

jiggy201117• 13 years ago

Ask browser vendors to include an authorization dialog before installing a CDM which describes what the CDM can do so that they can make an informed choice.

"The site xxx.com wants to install a module on your computer, this module has been signed by acme inc. Installing this module may be a requirement for consuming protected media from xxx.com.

In order to prevent you from circumventing policy; this module needs to make modifications to your computer as detailed in the license agreement (read here). These modifications will allow acme inc to read files on your computer, disable parts of your computer's functionality as specified by policy Z and may send personal information gathered to Acme Inc or selected partners

Allow?

Ok/Cancel

jakebellacera• 13 years ago

I think that option #5 is ideal. I don't believe that DRM belongs in the HTML spec. I see the spec as more of a toolkit to support whatever it is you need done (video/audio APIs, canvas, etc). DRM features should exist at the user level, preferably in the browser (as you have pointed out) or as it currently stands in an external plugin.

duncan_bayne23• 13 years ago

> I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives.

To quote Thomas Sowell:

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

crististm3• 13 years ago

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

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

Related Stories