W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

http://boingboing.net/2013/10/02/w3c-green-lights-adding-drm-to.html?

by zombio • 13 years ago

512 310 13 years ago

tikhonj• 13 years ago

How will this work with open-source browsers like Firefox? After all, what's to stop somebody from publishing an extension or even a modified version of the browser itself? DRM seems fundamentally unenforceable, after all.

Are the people pushing for this hoping it's just too much hassle?

These questions aren't rhetorical: I'm interested in what exactly the DRM people are pushing and how they expect it to work. Just not interested enough to read about it myself :D. (Also, I think this makes for a great conversation topic.)

jeremiep• 13 years ago

Most likely there was a lot of lobbying for this to happen. People with big money but no clue about how the internet really works.

I'm quite surprised to see Tim Berners-Lee approve this in fact, I wonder what made him say yes to this.

marshray• 13 years ago

We should watch closely what his career does next.

dubcanada• 13 years ago

It's actually mostly Netflix wanting this. They don't want to rely on SilverLight forever.

dethstar• 13 years ago

DRM people are not interested in how it'll work, in fact DRM often contributes to user of whatever it is implemented in suffering. They just want permission to insert their cluster fuck to keep getting rich.

fafner6• 13 years ago

They want to propose an API which would allow proprietary closed source binary blobs to display videos. In other words: They are pushing "yet another Flash" into HTML5.

asadotzler2• 13 years ago

A "Flash" without the (in)security footprint of an entire runtime duplicating Web standards, I think you mean.

sliverstorm2• 13 years ago

A better Flash? Yes, please, and thank you.

balabaster• 13 years ago

I'm curious how with the whole open source community how this will be at all enforceable... there's nothing stopping me releasing a browser that says "To hell with DRM, I'm just not going to enforce any of it"... and because it's open source and out there in the wild, there's not a whole hell of a lot anyone can do to shut it down...

Touche7• 13 years ago

The browser doesn't enforce the DRM, a binary blob in the OS does.

schoen7• 13 years ago

See my comment upthread about encrypted media and how licensing is used to control the availability of decryption keys. In existing DRM people are not required to implement it, but they can't achieve interoperability without the decryption keys.

betterunix3• 13 years ago

The idea is that the browser is going to ask some lower-level DRM system to decode everything, only displaying it to the user. In theory this is supposed to go all the way down to the TPM, so that you cannot subvert it with a debugger or rootkit. In practice, there will probably be bugs that lead to video streams being captured anyway, and the whole thing will only serve to further divide people and make free software harder to use.

Touche7• 13 years ago

DRM is not in the browser. The browser just acts as a gateway to allow the website to talk to a DRM component in the OS (or potentially in hardware).

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

Take for example a DRM protected video. That video is being send to the framebuffer of my video card. If I use an open source OS and open source Browser, what on earth is stopping me from capturing that video output?

jonahx4• 13 years ago

So at some point in the transaction you have to click "Allow" and install this component, similar to how a java applet works now?

mikeryan2• 13 years ago

The DRM isn't actually implemented by the browser its more of a plugin architecture (Encrypted Media Extensions) which commercial closed source DRM plugin can fill.

Pxtl2• 13 years ago

If it's just going to end-up plug-ins, I don't understand why DRM is being treated specifically at all instead of tweaks to the existing general-purpose plug-in architecture. If you want DRM, deal with Microsoft Silverlight or Adobe Flash or roll your own.

drzaiusapelord• 13 years ago

I imagine the client-side stuff won't really matter. I think in the end there will be a DRM API that will not trust the client. "Does this user have a valid key or username/pass to access this content" won't be answered on the client-side, but on the server-side.

Probably with a client-side file (or binary?) that gets delivered to the browser from the server and accessed locally in a sandboxed environment. This handles keys, auth, etc natively with the browser. This might be seamless to the end user.

Probably easily crackable like, say SteamWorks, but good enough to keep low-hanging fruit safe and copyright holders happy as we begin to retire flash entirely. Joe User won't be able to 'right-click and saveas' but he'll be able to view HTML5 video.

I think TBL is stuck between a rock and a hard place, just like Gabe Newell was with Steam. Users hate DRM, but he can't sell games without it. Some crowd-happy DRM scheme that's unobtrusive might be the only winning move here.

schoen7• 13 years ago

In most DRM systems the information is distributed encrypted. The decryption keys are given to technology developers who have specifically promised to obey the DRM rules, as well as to make their technology hard for users to understand or modify so that the users can't easily undo the restrictions or extract the decryption keys.

Hence a browser developer or OS developer or developer of whatever software is in question wouldn't be permitted (by the DRM system's inventor or administrator) to get decryption keys if they didn't promise to implement these restrictions.

Some of the people who invented the modern DRM business ecology called this "the intersection of technology, law, and commercial licensing" (the title of a 1996 article by Dean Marks and Bruce Turnbull). Here, the "technology" is DRM implementations -- including software obfuscation and other measures; the "law" is anticircumvention laws like the DMCA §1201 that make it risky for people to use the decryption keys in ways that industry dislikes; and "commercial licensing" is the permission from a DRM developer to interoperate with that DRM, including "compliance" rules (about the functionality of the technology product) and "robustness" rules (about tamper-resistance), that result in the licensee being issued decryption keys.

In my view (I worked on EFF's objection) this is a deliberate attack on software interoperability: the whole point is to allow someone to try to prevent interoperability with software that hasn't been "approved". And it's also in extreme tension with the idea of having browsers that end-users can modify (their individual instances of).

PeterisP5• 13 years ago

I see no way how an open source system can implement any effective DRM standard while staying open source.

If a proper open source system has a component that enforces DRM, and is functional when I download it, then it includes those keys; but gives me an unconditional right to use and modify it. And I am physically able to modify it, un-implementing those restrictions.

If part of the system cannot be modified by me, then the whole is not open source, and any open source system such as Firefox shouldn't include that part or standard.

chris_mahan• 13 years ago

Does it mean that Firefox could not both implement DRM and remain open source?

Excellent!

excitom• 13 years ago

In past years in my career I worked in game development. I can say without hesitation that anything client side can be reverse engineered and hacked. Any limitation built into a browser can be circumvented, and it will happen in a matter of days from release.

epsylon• 13 years ago

The thing is most Firefox users don't even know what an extension is. If my parents' Firefox ships with support for DRMs, they won't care about it. Once it becomes widespread, there's simply no way to start "un-supporting it".

cyrus_2• 13 years ago

The EFF has strong words about where this is taking the open web [1]:

"A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's a Web where user agents—browsers—must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page. It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable."

They suggest the W3C may be digging itself into another hole like the one that led to the formation of WHATWG. A good read.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard...

Supermighty• 13 years ago

What is the WHATWG's position on this? They represent the browser makers. If they support DRM then it's game over. Another break-away standards group won't be able to do anything to sway the browser makers. What could they do?

cbhl4• 13 years ago

Consider that three of the largest browser makers -- Microsoft, Apple, and Google -- all have arms that deal heavily with media companies.

I dislike DRM as much as the next person, but if it's implemented reasonably (think Steam or Netflix), then many consumers are willing to deal with it. EME was what enabled Netflix on ARM-based Chromebooks, for example; and I prefer EME to not being able to legally access media at all.

jgraham• 13 years ago

The WHATWG doesn't really "exist" in quite the same way that the W3C does. There isn't Process for obtaining an opinion that you can then ascribe to an organisation rather than one or more individuals. It only represents the browser makers insofar as the specs hosted at whatwg.org accurately reflect what browsers implement. Sometimes this is achived by adjusting the browsers to match the specs; oftentimes the opposite occurs.

It is certainly the case that several individuals editing specs under the WHATWG banner have set out their opposition to DRM. It seems unlikely that Hixie will include it the HTML spec he edits unless, of course, we end up with something implemented in browsers that is both interoperable and open. Since "open" rather defeats the point of DRM, it's difficult to imagine that happening, however.

marcosdumay2• 13 years ago

Most browsers are free software nowadays. Their makers opinion is important (yeah, forking is hard work), but not that much.

parasubvert6• 13 years ago

Seemingly, the WHATWG is against this. But there's a big difference between individuals on a mailing list and broader corporate interests.

It's a tragic comedy that everyone's yelling at the W3C for losing their way yet again... the WHATWG, weren't they great. Yet the WHATWG is basically a proxy for Google, Apple and Microsoft. And they have driven the W3C agenda for a long while.

When you repeatedly shit on the hippies, academics, and non-browser makers that had more sway in the past at the W3C, and replace them by corporate browser makers, you weaken the antibodies that were in place. The WHATWG's presence has marginalizing other voices within the W3C and forced it to listen to its primary members - i.e. corporate, pay-to-play ones.

jonahx4• 13 years ago

This news makes me so sad. Also: The more things progress, the more and more sense RMS makes.

MarcScott• 13 years ago

I wish I could upvote more than once.

rimantas2• 13 years ago

Actually RMS makes less and less sense each day (and has nothing to do with this issue at all), and comments of this kind are getting annoying.

_j5l3• 13 years ago

What is RMS in this context? Googling got me nowhere.

wdewind9• 13 years ago

It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable.

I may be totally naive here, but I'm not really sure why this matters. That there is a WC3 standard does not imply that browsers have to adhere to it. If they didn't they simply wouldn't be able to access DRM protected content. From a UX perspective this seems no different from Netflix putting their content behind a login. Maybe I am being an idiot, if so please correct me, but this doesn't really seem like anything to worry about. The threats implied by EFF, that massive corporations will control content on the internet, seems only true for content published by those massive corporations (and thus are already happening now, with 3rd party DRM ie: Netflix's Silverlight player). It doesn't stop people from publishing non DRM protected content.

I would agree this doesn't belong in the spec on technical level, but it seems to be inclusive not exclusive.

cyrus_2• 13 years ago

The W3C is the guardian of the world wide web, a system for disseminating information publicly and globally to all those who may benefit from it. By standardizing DRM for video, they are giving legitimacy to a technical kludge that is designed specifically to prevent the dissemination of information. There are legitimate reasons why someone may wish to save a video to their hard drive, just like they can save an image today. There is no reason the web should be built upon mechanisms designed specifically to privilege corporate interests over the interests of those falling under fair use exemptions to copyright laws.

marcosdumay2• 13 years ago

It matters because of two things:

1 - We'll lose the W3C. We'll have to either create another standards body, or go back to the 90's situation when nobody agreed on anything.

2 - There are a few places where actualy reading the data somebody sent to you is a crime. Despite the drawbacks on those kinds of law, some of those places are still very importantly economically, and we can't just ignore them, at least for now. If you create a code for "don't read this data" to be sent over the web, disobeying it will become a crime there.

gavinlynch2• 13 years ago

"> It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable."

What the hell are they even talking about here? Since when has ANY browser been "Fully, 100% W3C Compliant"?? Answer: None. Ever. Seriously.

There are rafts of non-compliant features, both legacy and newly introduced, in every single one of the most popular modern web browsers. (Even Opera!!) Certainly, with the last decade of popular support pushing Browser Vendors towards W3C compliance, the web has been more standards-based than ever before.

But this is just a silly argument. I agree with the political aim of the EFF here. But let's not just invent things or misrepresent things. It makes them lose credibility in my eyes.

nailer• 13 years ago

Say you're a netflix customer. You login to watch a video. But Netflix hasn't updated to support your amazing new device that uses a different OS.

Pretty much like Firefox and IE6 activeX sites, or iPhones / android and flash. DRM simply restricts playback devices.

JoshTriplett• 13 years ago

The problem isn't that browsers do or don't have to implement this "standard"; the problem is that the standard itself isn't enough to actually support the content it claims to support.

It's the equivalent of standardizing the object or embed tags: it's a standard way of getting at non-standard functionality, and sites then depend on specific implementations of that non-standard functionality, the same way they depend on the Flash plugin today in ways that knowing how to implement the object tag doesn't help with.

Standardizing a single fully-specified mechanism for DRM might actually be useful (debatably), but that would break the current model in which DRM is completely unsound and relies on security-through-obscurity. "Standardizing" a means of getting at the myriad non-standard DRM implementations and their non-standard APIs is worse than worthless: it's actively harmful, and it prolongs the death of those technologies.

Right now, content providers have to choose whether to support the open web or DRM. They should continue to have to make that choice, with supporters of the open web reaching a larger audience, until eventually all the holdouts either switch or lose. This is a major step backward for that goal, and the W3C has no business claiming EME has anything to do with the open web.

Someone• 13 years ago

"From a UX perspective this seems no different from Netflix putting their content behind a login."

That depends on where you think UX ends. That login will work fine from within an open source browser and/or OS you compiled (and possibly wrote or tweaked) yourself.

I haven't read the article, but if that DRM works, it wouldn't run in your browser on your OS, as content providers would not trust them. Chances are that your Chrome, Firefox, or Safari extensions wouldn't even work with the DRM (at best, they would get disabled on protected (from you) pages.)

ds9• 13 years ago

That would be the dystopian outcome if the sites and browsers together diverged from open standards and started forcing DRM on everyone.

What this standard actually specifies however, is only that the browser will respond to a certain tag by looking for some proprietary-ware to play whatever audio and/or video someone wants to restrict.

This is a disappointing move on the part of w3c, because it lends some air of legitimacy to DRM, and because it revives the otherwise dying plugin system under a new name. But it doesn't actually force DRM on anyone or restrict the ability to do anything on the web.

The best case would be that users are unwilling to install the black-box-ware in order to see videos or whatever, and the feature is little used and the copyright exploiters have to either unlock the content or go away with it. None of which would be bad.

jiggy20118• 13 years ago

This is a bit of an exaggeration, we have had content like this on the web for years with proprietary technologies like flash, silverlight ,activeX and highly obfuscated JS. Not to mention the amount of content locked into walled gardens and proprietary app stores etc.

The W3 proposals suggested do not in fact mandate browser vendors implement any DRM scheme to remain 100% standards compliant. This is myth that gets repeated on HN surprisingly often.

The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details.

The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already.

jonahx4• 13 years ago

The issue is that some big name content providers don't want to sell you content unless they can also install things on your computer. This fact remains regardless of the technological implementation details.

Sure, but we don't have to aid them in their quest

The overwhelming majority of content on the web is DRM free. These proposals do not mandate nor give any incentive for that content to be protected if it is not already.

The practical effect of being able to deliver DRM'd content to every non-technical web user, without first having to get that user to download and install your proprietary software, is just massive. This is one of the biggest falloff points in the conversion funnel, so it makes this new delivery method highly attractive. As it is now, businesses have to balance the cost of losing customers against the cost of not being able to DRM their content. Take that dilemma away and I think you certainly have a new incentive. The practical effects of this are far reaching imo.

fafner6• 13 years ago

If Digital Restrictions Management gets added to HTML5 then it makes it far easier for content hosts to add restrictions. This is a huge risk.

But more importantly the idea of HTML5 was to get rid of proprietary closed source plugins like Flash. Adding DRM to HTML5 will make it rely on proprietary closed source plugins.

I hope the W3C reconsiders. If somebody feels the need for DRM then they should implement their own stuff outside of the open web.

makomk12• 13 years ago

Browser vendors don't have to implement any DRM scheme, but they will and sites will use them. What this means in practice is that there will be 100% standards compliant, pure HTML5 websites that can only legally be rendered in specific, proprietary browsers. The stated purpose of HTML5 EME is to make it a criminal offence under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause to develop an unauthorised browser or extension that displays the protected content.

If anything this is worse than proprietary plugins because those used documented APIs that any browser could support, whereas this is integrated into the web browser itself.

sliverstorm2• 13 years ago

We've already got Silverlight, Flash, Java, so on and so forth... denying DRM entry to HTML won't stop DRM web content, and allowing it might just make the experience less miserable.

pornel• 13 years ago

It will make it more miserable, because EME is not a standard DRM, it's a plug-in interface for launching browser-specific/vendor-specific DRM plug-ins. DRM plug-ins are allowed to do whatever they want, and proponents at W3C want to completely bypass the browser and have DRM all the way from TPM to HDCP.

Makers of Flash and Silverlight were a 3rd party in the DRM battle. They had to worry about their plugins' marketshare and could not implement too user-hostile DRM. They had to balance pleasing media corporations and users.

Now there won't be anything stopping MPAA's CEOs wet dreams running in your OS's kernel. Media corps have Netflix and Google (Play Store) in their pockets and can force them to ship all kinds of nastiness — under W3C's brand name.

parasubvert6• 13 years ago

The WHATWG are in control of the W3C's agenda. The corporate members of the WHATWG are the ones pushing for Web DRM. Oh, not the individuals necessarily. They might be opposed to it.

But they're just voices in a large game: Microsoft and Google are co-editors with Netflix of the new DRM spec.

stackcollision• 13 years ago

I don't see it taking too long for someone to make an open source DRM-free browser that just ignores the HTML 5 DRM functionality.

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

Would that be possible? Then can this still be called DRM?

Edit: How can it be DRM if the algorithms/formats/protocols are open? Or aren't they open?

Touche7• 13 years ago

No, not unless the browser found a way to give false positives when EME asks for DRM validation.

forgottenpass• 13 years ago

How can it be DRM if the algorithms/formats/protocols are open? Or aren't they open?

They're not. IIRC, the only open parts are the hooks the actual DRM plugin (but we're not calling it a plugin!) will utilize.

devx• 13 years ago

The problem is MPAA & friends will already see this as an "entitlement" and say those other browsers are "facilitating piracy", while the major ones from Google, Microsoft and Apple aren't. Something like that will sound very good to government and authorities.

I really think allowing this to happen in the first place is just like opening the Pandora box. You give these guys an inch, they never stop demanding for more censorship.

cheald6• 13 years ago

Read the spec. This wouldn't work, specifically because EME is a set of interfaces to proprietary blobs which do the actual content decryption and optional rendering.

Building a browser that ignores EME would be functionally equivalent to building a browser that can't use Flash.

PeterisP5• 13 years ago

A browser can save the data after it's been rendered. A DRM plugin can't tell the difference between an "approved" browser that doesn't do that versus a modified browser that just pretends to be an approved browser.

oonny2• 13 years ago

Isn't this good news for video distributors who haven't converted over to HTML5 (native video support) because of lack of support for DRM?

davexunit2• 13 years ago

And terrible news for all users.

oonny2• 13 years ago

how so? I really don't get it. how is moving from a plugin (flash/sliverlight) to html5 a bad thing as long as you can protect your content?

jimktrains23• 13 years ago

Sure, but is it good news for the users?

maxerickson• 13 years ago

Yeah, sure. Some sort of somewhat effective anti digital copying mechanism is a great way to enable video rentals on general purpose computers (especially given the pervasive copyright regime of modern video content).

There are issues to come when consumers only have access to encumbered media, but at the moment, they pretty clearly benefit from the access.

maxk422• 13 years ago

We can and should let them die.

wmf2• 13 years ago

Distributors may not be happy once they discover that Safari supports FairPlay DRM, Chrome supports Widevine DRM, IE supports WMDRM, Samsung phones support SamDRM, HTC phones couldn't afford to license any DRM, etc.

makomk12• 13 years ago

Yeah. Also, there's no requirement for the different DRM schemes to support the same codecs or containers or encryption schemes, so potentially they'll have to re-encode all their content for each scheme. It's actually less standardized than pay TV encryption believe it or not!

Edit: The interface between the DRM servers and your backend code isn't standardized either, so content providers still have to do a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific development work. Basically, they standardized just enough to allow sites with DRM to claim they're 100% HTML5, it barely improves interoperability at all.

Pxtl2• 13 years ago

Funny how some of the largest sites on the internet can base their entire business model on stolen pictorial content - completely with stripping off the identifying information of the original artists - and nobody at the W3C bats an eye.

But the moment the MPAA muscles their way into the debate, suddenly we're all about DRM.

If you want DRM, you use a plug-in or a separate application. There's no reason that an app like Netflix or whatever can't use pure-HTML for everything but the video-stream and use a plug-in based object for the stream.

Keep HTML free.

dublinben4• 13 years ago

If you want DRM, you use a plug-in or a separate application. There's no reason that an app like Netflix or whatever can't use pure-HTML for everything but the video-stream and use a plug-in based object for the stream.

That's exactly what this standard would allow.

hayksaakian• 13 years ago

That's how it is now without a standard. We don't need a standard for stupid anti-UX features like built in DRM

Touche7• 13 years ago

Except the plugin is the responsibility of the browser, not them. This is effectively a way to shift the maintenance burden on browser and OS vendors.

jimktrains23• 13 years ago

What happened to the concept of the User Agent being a representative of the user, not the content provider?

yk3• 13 years ago

It is now a user-double-agent.

chadwickthebold2• 13 years ago

I think that many people are drastically underestimating the effect this may have on the open web. The response "oh, well we'll just build a browser that will avoid the DRM" isn't going to work quite as well as one might hope. It's not such a stretch of the imagination that content providers will detect such browsers and refuse to supply any content at all. This would be similar to what many sites do now for users of IE6-8, where a message is displayed prompting them to upgrade. Except in this case a message would be displayed telling you to download an effectively locked-down browser. Ugh.

grimtrigger• 13 years ago

Impossible, browser detection is easily spoofed. Some browsers come built with the ability to spoof other browsers since its valuable for developers who need to test how their sites appear in other browsers.

da_n• 13 years ago

But you could easily do feature detection, much like Modernizr, simply changing the user agent is not going to fool anyone.

rimantas2• 13 years ago

This will have precisely zero effect on the open web (whatever that is). Amazing number of commenters fail to realise that: a) nothing that makes web open is removed. Sorry to disappoint you, but HTML will keep working as it did. b) technology not being w3c standard does not stop it from being implemented in browsers as history shows.

In the end what browser vendors do matters the most, not what w3c thinks. Just look at the history of WHATWG.

Gonzih• 13 years ago

W3C - Ruining HTML since... often...

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

Can someone PLEASE explain to me the following: If my computer is playing the video and playing the audio. How on God's green earth can they stop me from capturing that? ... It's playing right in front of me... I can hear and see it. It's not hidden or secret. Look.

If you ask me, the only reason DRM has worked up to now, is because code/file formats/protocols were secret. People didn't have access to the source. But now they do, in the open source browsers.

But PLEASE enlighten me. I wants to know.

dexen• 13 years ago

Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia ? Sure you can record in the analog hole, but the playback of copies will becut or limited.

Imagine a browser refuse playback video or audio clip based on Cinavia DRM plugin, and also a website requiring such plugin -- via the DRM API -- to provide any content.

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

From that link: "When media with the watermark is played back on a system with Cinavia detection, its firmware will detect the watermark and check that the device on which it is being played is authorized for that watermark."

So I just make a media player that ignores the watermark, based on the open source code I found in the browser... DRM hacked.

dublinben4• 13 years ago

HDCP does a 'pretty good' job of achieving that. There's a protected path all the way to the display, that can't be accessed by other software.

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

If it's encrypted all the way to the hardware, then it get's a bit more believable. But that really can't be done on the web, can it? "You no have DRM chip? No tubez for you!"

yk3• 13 years ago

Pretty good job, until the key was leaked. [0][1]

[0] http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedl... [1] Key: http://pastebin.com/kCA3dFDv

maggit2• 13 years ago

What makes you think DRM has worked up to now? Which content is unavailable for pirating because of DRM?

As far as I can tell DRM has only ever punished, and still only punishes, legitimate users.

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

It only punishes users if it is badly implemented. I doubt many users of Steam or Netflix feel punished.

grahamburger• 13 years ago

The parts of the browsers that support the DRM would probably have to be delivered as binary blobs in order to be standards compliant.

jellicle• 13 years ago

The analog hole will always exist. But please understand: it's ANALOG hole.

Ten years from now (I know it will happen by then; probably sooner), if I grab my Apple smartphone and press "record video" and point it at a piece of DRM-protected content playing on my computer, it will not record. Will not record. There will just be a black spot in your recording. The recording audio will cut out as well, if an audio watermark is detected.

It's an ANALOG hole. Film cameras will always be able to record your screen. Cassette recorders will work fine. But your digital equipment? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

pslam• 13 years ago

The W3C hasn't been a good "guardian" of HTML for a very long time. This is pretty much why they're not even the only guardian around - there's also WHATWG.

For example, 12 years ago W3C attempting to push "RAND" patent licensing into HTML:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment...

This was 100% against the concept of a free, open web, and it took a huge effort to stop it happening. It's crazy that it even got that far.

So it's no surprise that they're pushing industry interests again today. I lost all confidence in that group safeguarding HTML a long time ago, and it looks like the they haven't changed.

maxk422• 13 years ago

Let them. I'll build my own browser and it won't respect this shit in the slightest.

We'll make a new W3C. One that can't be bought so easily.

ToastyMallows• 13 years ago

I'll go build my own W3C, with blackjack and hookers!

bcoates• 13 years ago

Here's the membership list of the W3C: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

It would be great if anyone opposed to this would contact an organization on this list, ask them why they're endorsing and funding DRM and the end of the free Web, and if not, when they will be resigning from the W3C.

Every name you can get stricken from the list is up to around $70,000 per year defunded from what is now most effective driver of DRM in the world. [1] Getting some public statements from the membership would be educational, if nothing else.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees?countryCode=US&quarter=10-...

smosher2• 13 years ago

How do you think Sony and the EFF will respond?

AsymetricCom• 13 years ago

Does the W3C have any authority over web standards or is it just a bunch of circle jerking corporations pretending to have town halls?

judah• 13 years ago

New coined term: DRM-HTML.

'By contrast, W3C has now put its weight behind a restrictive future: let's call it "DRM-HTML".'

nodata• 13 years ago

Good. Roll on W4C!

asc1232• 13 years ago

Wicked World Wide Web

pkulak2• 13 years ago

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM. That's not going to change. Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag?

Right now we have Flash and Silverlight everywhere and it's a PITA. How open are those two? This adds the option of moving this stuff out of plugins. If you want to live in some everything-is-free utopia, just never visit netflix.com.

chadwickthebold2• 13 years ago

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

cheald6• 13 years ago

EME CDMs are closed plugins for open browsers. It's literally the status quo except with a smaller breakage surface due to a more specialized purpose.

debacle2• 13 years ago

I don't think anyone said that the DRM code will be closed source.

You don't complain when you can't decrypt PGP, even though PGP implementations are open source. This is the same thing.

betterunix3• 13 years ago

"Some content cannot go anywhere without DRM"

Why should we care? The web is not supposed to restrict users. If Universal does not like it, they can go somewhere else -- they have the cable TV system with all its restrictions and anti-freedom design.

pkulak2• 13 years ago

No, the web is all about restricting users. It's baked into several HTTP error codes (403 and 401 off the top of my head). SSL is also rather popular.

I assume you mean that the browser shouldn't restrict users? Like, if I stream a movie from Netflix, I should be able to also save it locally so I can take parts of it to use in my fair use arts project? Sorry. Never going to happen. Forcing this use case that _people want_ off into plugins isn't going to make anything more "free".

That's like selling a Roku box that can only play Ted and Youtube videos and saying that it's better because it's totally free, and open, and doesn't restrict its users. Well, sure, that is the best kind of correct. But only because you yanked everything that wasn't free. You didn't actually add any value over the standard Roku box that plays Netflix and Amazon.

adrr• 13 years ago

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

nemothekid• 13 years ago

The movie/television industry wasn't crippled piracy, and most likely will never be. These guys print money and it seems they will print money for time to come, and Netflix/Prime/Hulu generates pennies compared to the TV/Movie industries billions.

Simply put, the movie/television is much more diverse than the music industry and won't see its lunch eaten.

The biggest hurdle in getting DRM content in the contract games that are being played with all the major providers right now (remember the TWC/CBS dispute). In these contracts are clauses for all content to be DRM'd. Even if everyone understood that DRM is bad UX, no one gives a shit about fighting those clauses when TWC is removing CBS over contract disputes. It just currently doesn't make sense to risk hundreds of millions of dollars for a moral issue that 99% of users simply don't care about.

__david__• 13 years ago

Do you think the Universal is just 6 months away from streaming the latest blockbuster with VP8 in a video tag?

They should be. Because I'm going to continue getting my DRM free video from the Pirate Bay until they do. They might have a chance at revenue if they'd just get over themselves. Dinosaurs.

pippy• 13 years ago

HTML5 DRM video makes sense, and it might force content producers to modernise their distribution methods. This would be nice for consumers, many of who are forced to pirate simply because content isn't available in their country or don't have cable subscriptions.

It won't stop piracy, even if it means holding a camera up to the screen to capture the data.

However locking down the browser itself is simply ridiculous. it reminds me of snopes.com disabling right click.

revelation4• 13 years ago

I don't get it. If they want a plugin, they should build a plugin. Why would any sane person (1) create redundant infrastructure for DRM plugins (2) get all the same security problems and more just because some hipsters at Netflix get a hardon when they can't use HTML5 video tags and have to embed a plugin? We certainly shouldn't offload Netflixs woes with content producers onto every browser maker in existence.

What a bizarre discussion. Should have been laughed out from the first proposal.

josteink3• 13 years ago

Should have been laughed out from the first proposal.

And yet it wasn't. Can certainly make you wonder about the health of the W3C as a whole.

DonGateley• 13 years ago

This could have really huge and ugly long term consequences for search engines.

OTOH, with a little help from the OS to guard the path through to the HDMI spigot (which is probably already in place) I may be able to see all my Amazon Instant Prime content via my browser in HD. :-)

There's an upside to the downside. Some things will be closed by this and some things will be opened. The impact on the non-pirating media consumer will mostly be positive.

The impact on the cable companies and other parasitic channels through which content must now pass will, to our benefit, be negative since content producers will need them for nothing to maximize the returns on their investment. Many hands that dip into the revenue stream between the producer and the consumer to merely protect the stream can be easily eliminated. The same is true of all the various music channels from the labels through iTunes to Spotify.

I like this because artists and producers will be able to negotiate with us directly which will lower the cost and the motivation to pirate. I'm all for artists and producers making money on their work, but not all the various middle men this can remove from the picture.

I'm very concerned, however, about the possibly negative effect on things other than media content like the general flow of news and information. Any item of information can now easily carry a price for internet access independent of the channels through which it moves.

Verdict: mixed bag.

AlexanderDhoore6• 13 years ago

Look! The prison's so big you can't even see the walls! How nice.

thrillgore2• 13 years ago

Wow. This isn't just adapting DRM, they're literally saying that they can change the HTML5 standard at a whim and we'll only have access to the CC0 licensed spec.

Time to fork HTML5.

asc1232• 13 years ago

As someone that learned a lot using view source. this is just upsetting

biturd• 13 years ago

isnt this the equivalent of greying out the "view source" menu item or removing the developer menu item?

You can still get the entire page, it comes in over the wire. If they do this, I would assume we can just capture the raw data, and new apps that decode that raw data and give the same tools as the browser developer tools offer.

If not, hopefully there are browsers who refuse to implement, and hopefully it takes less time than it took Adobe to learn their lesson.

otikik• 13 years ago

Let them spend their money and time there.

That's money and time they will not spend doing something useful for their interests.

shmerl• 13 years ago

One should think twice before supporting Netflix in any way after this.

josteink3• 13 years ago

This is poison and against everything the W3C is set to do according to their own mission statement.

Everything we've spent the last 20 years building and standardising. Now ruined. Tainted.

They have now lost all legitimacy among anyone who calls themselves a proponent of the open web. We need a new leadership as the old one can't be trusted. We need an open web action group to start over.

Thanks for fragmenting the web, W3C. Thanks for nothing, assholes.

parasubvert6• 13 years ago

A bit melodramatic.

The W3C was always a pay-for-play organization led by corporate interests. The full time staff of the W3C were MIT academics trying to foster conversation so that the openness of the web could be preserved among the reality that most funding for browsers was between competitors looking to make a buck. It took enormous pressure and nearly a decade (1994-2004) to foster web standards to the competent mediocrity they are today.

The WHATWG only solidified the corporate interests, by making browser makers The Only Ones Who Matter: Google (who also funds Mozilla), Microsoft, and Apple.

You can claim you want new leadership, but who has the credibility and legitimacy you claim has been lost? Students? Government workers? All competent engineers are working for for-profit companies (or are funded by them) that want to monetize your eyeballs. You could look to academia and government-funding, I suppose, like the original web. But the web is here, now. It's likely not going to be replaced.

Starting over is a loser's game.

mmcclure2• 13 years ago

I don't mean this as a defense of EME, but I think this is more rabble-rousing and fear mongering than anything else. What the EFF and this article are saying is that EME opens the door for this kind of stuff to make its way to the spec. EME on its own does absolutely none of this.

EME is not DRM. It's a standard spec for plugins that provide DRM. Essentially it means that someone like Netflix could still use the HTML5 video element for playback while interacting with a browser plugin just to handle the DRM aspect of things.

negativity• 13 years ago

For those who don't know what "EME" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions

josteink3• 13 years ago

It's DRM legitimised as a concept in a supposedly open standard. it's a slippery slope.

with video DRM having a foot inside, who dares to venture a guess at what the next victim will be? DRMed js? DRMed html?

mmcclure2• 13 years ago

I totally understand what you're saying (and agree), my point was that a lot of people posting here seem to think that all of these scary "nexts" are what was approved by the W3C.

Yes, it would be a travesty if those things actually happened. Yes, I think DRM is ultimately pointless and silly. Keep in mind, though, that this is just a transition from one method of DRM playback to another, not a leap to DRM for things that didn't previously have it.

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

How is the EME slope any more slippy than it is right now with Flash or Silverlight? Both allow sites to serve code in an obscured and non-open way. And yet no one serves a Flash-only or Silverlight-only site.

x0054• 13 years ago

Ok, it sounds to me like this is way, way, over blown. First, the DRM is NOT going to be built into the browser it self. It's basically a new name for a plug in system, nothing more. So, to everyone who thinks they can roll their own browser and avoid the DRM, no you will not be able to.

It's not bad or good for consumers, at best, it's about the same. It's very simple, studios will not allow you to rent their movies without DRM. Netflix will not be able to function without DRM. Neither can steam. It's not up to them, it's up to the content providers, not companies like Netflix.

Is it stupid? Yes. My high school teacher, with no technical knowledge what so ever had a way to brake almost any video DRM. He would play the video on his TV, and record the image with his HD Cam. Stupid? Yes. Effective? Also yes.

The point is, as long as its a plugin type of architecture, not part of the browser binary, what's the big deal. How is it different from Flash or Silverlight?

Oh, and to everyone that proclaims that DRM is bad. Many of you are developers for startups. Is your startup all open source? Why not? Isn't compiling code or running it only on your servers just another type of DRM? Ask your self, would you have a job if your company was forced to share all the code you write? All of it, even the stuff that you write from scratch and only run on your servers.

I think many people hate DRM because of how bad it's implemented, not because of the fact that its there in the first place. Well implemented DRM should be completely transparent to the end user who paid for the content. Steam and Netflix do a pretty good job of it.

makomk12• 13 years ago

No, the DRM is going to be built into the browser itself. Browser vendors could in theory implement it as a plugin but they don't seem to be planning to and the W3C doesn't specify any kind of plugin mechanism. IE11 at least integrates it into the browser executable.

diminoten3• 13 years ago

That's just not true, for exactly the example provided above.

It'd make no sense to let people roll their own browsers that circumvent DRM.

cliffbean• 13 years ago

Among other reasons, people dislike DRM because it involves someone else effectively making your computer do something which you can't control, or even observe. Schemes vary, but the stronger ones can't even be run under a VM. This is a level beyond merely being "closed source".

bzbarsky2• 13 years ago

Consider that of the four major browser vendors (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google) three are also major DRM vendors (Google's Widevine, Microsoft's PlayReady, and Apple's FairPlay).

What exactly do you think will prevent them from building their already-existing in-house DRM (three different systems, note!) into their own browsers?

snowwrestler3• 13 years ago

I guess I don't understand what the problem with that would be.

Would that somehow lead to Hacker News or Facebook encrypting their site's source code with that DRM? I sort of doubt it. They could do that now with Flash if they wanted to, but no one thinks Flash websites are a good idea.

chinpokomon3• 13 years ago

Actually Netflix and Stream could both operate without DRM. If content providers don't want to provide their content to open systems, that is their concern, not that of the middle men. Adding a DRM standard just placates to corporate wishes to control content. This has the chilling effect to prevent fair use, or worse it can be used to lock up content that should otherwise be open and free.

vlad003• 13 years ago

It is the concern of the middle men, though. If content providers aren't willing to provide content, then the middle men will have no reason to exist. You can't have Netflix without any movies or shows on it.

wavefunction2• 13 years ago

I'm just curious about what all of you opposed to this would offer as an alternative to companies like Netflix or other streaming sites. No DRM? That's simply not going to fly.

If you really want to undermine DRM in an honest and ethical manner, you should leave those DRM'd properties to their owners and support non-DRM media.

How many of you listen to itunes media and are raging about this...

maggit2• 13 years ago

DRM-free is the way to go, and has been the way for music on iTunes since March 2009 (http://www.macworld.com/article/1137946/itunestore.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Movement_against_D...)

I seem to remember reports that iTunes sales increased quite a bit as they removed the DRM, indicating that removing DRM does indeed make the most business sense, not just the most moral sense or whatever. The best source I've been able to come up with quickly is this: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1022890/emi-drm-fre...

wavefunction2• 13 years ago

They only went DRM free in response to pressure from Amazon who began selling DRM free MP3s. I am not a fan of DRM at all but I believe that if a "content owner" wants to encumber their own creation with it, they should have that right and freedom.

jakeogh• 13 years ago

W3C is on HAL's side... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYqkU1y0AYc

1qaz2wsx3edc• 13 years ago

I wish a browser vendor would step up and say no to this. As in "we won't support a DRM future in the browser". Firefox, Chrome?

mcherm• 13 years ago

Mozilla (makers of Firefox) campaigned strongly against this in the W3C. But they haven't promised never to support DRM in their browser, and they are not likely to as it would marginalize their browser. What is more likely to happen is that they won't be able to pay the licensing fees for the DRM software and therefore won't include it, and then their browser will become marginalized. ("Firefox: the browser that can't view YouTube or Netflix.")

AnIrishDuck2• 13 years ago

For a preview of how this approach would turn out for Mozilla, look at the H.264/WebM debacle. Mozilla refused to implement H.264 for a long time, but after Google reneged on its promise to drop support, Mozilla finally caved to keep its userbase.

I doubt they'd even try again, seeing as they've already seen this movie and know how it will end.

schoen7• 13 years ago

Chrome might be difficult because Google has already implemented it in ChromeOS and is a coauthor of the EME specification.

joshlegs• 13 years ago

the hell? What were they thinking when they decided this would be a good idea ??

jsilva• 13 years ago

Does anyone know if this EME Plugins would be able to access browser data or what kind of data would be available to this plugins ?

makomk12• 13 years ago

The mechanism for the EME plugins to interact with the browser isn't specified at all last time I looked - it's totally browser-specific.

oscargrouch3• 13 years ago

This is a clear sign that the W3C now is hostage of the big corporations.. say goodbye to the dream and vision created by the founders of the Web, and what the WWW was meant to be for us all: a democratic place of freedom, education and shareing to all the world.. a world without frontiers, without borders.. infinite as it could be..

All i see now is the corporate internet.. people may not remember this but AOL and the like tried to create privates corporate internet's and lose in the long term.. the world was too big to be contained.. to be controlled..

This is the beginning of the end of what internet was supposed to be?

parasubvert6• 13 years ago

I think you completely have missed the historic charter and nature of the W3C. It always was a pay to play organization, where they highly encouraged corporate or institutional members and dissuaded individual membership. It's very, very different from (say) the IETF.

The intent was to recognize the Web world for what it was: filled with competitive interests with no interest on the integrity of the architecture that had been created. The W3C was a way to bring their engineers together to save the Web from the various marketing departments that were escalating an arms race of proprietary browser features. It was to create a legitimate channel to drive agreements across competitors without antitrust concerns.

It didn't entirely succeed, only somewhat. But this decision is consistent with its history. The W3C is only a reflection of its members.

rdl• 13 years ago

While DRM is generally annoying, if the technology exists, it might be interesting to use it for ERM -- being able to prevent copying of documents which are editable in-browser would be potentially a better way to work than the VDI or dedicated hardware used now.

wnevets• 13 years ago

If you have to distribute the key to the client (dvd player, browser, etc) isnt it just a matter of time before the key is discovered and the content can decrypted at will?

How does this standard prevent that?

bsimpson• 13 years ago

"So long, and thanks for all the GIFs."

treenyc• 13 years ago

Just have a label in Firefox that says:

CLOSED SOURCE

icon

on top so that we know we are about to visit a site where we can't see the source of the javascript that is being run on our computer.

The idea is to develop a culture for people to prefer OPEN SOURCED site vs a CLOSED SOURCED one.

wildster• 13 years ago

If this means companies like Netflix use HTML5 rather than Silverlight to stream films it will ultimately make the world a better place.

camus2• 13 years ago

makes no difference , you'll still need to install some 3rd party plugin or buy authorized hardware in order to run the media.

Doesnt change anything for the client.

The providers will swap an object tag for a video one ,that's what it is all about.

It's basically a Flash or Silverlight for video and sound only.

cmircea• 13 years ago

All of this is just the symptom of not providing a goddamn good service. If these media companies would provide a good service DRM wouldn't make sense even in their minds. But no, they're stuck in the dark ages, with their heads up their asses.

I mean, look at what Steam has done to the video game industry; or iOS/Android app stores. When it's easier to buy the copy pretty much nobody is going to bother stealing it.

oscargrouch3• 13 years ago

Only that steal is such a strong word for that.. i dont think digital goods can be stealed, cause steal is to subtract somebody of something.. if i get your watch without your consent, you will be without it.. thats steal..

With a digital good you can copy over and over, and never subtract the original author of its own copy..

The industry itself tried to implant this wrong concept on the peoples mind so they would think its the same.. only its not..

i think the best approach from them would be to accept that new reality in the digital age.. and try to collect money from good customers, the buyers, and try to collect from the people that have made copies of the work by stating they have obligations, and expenses to do that work, and ask for the users the support..

i think thats pretty much what microsoft did with windows.. trying to fight with a possible customer treating him as the enemy, will only hurt them in the long term..

They need to think with a new perspective, not with the same ideas as the XX century.. it will only cause them more damage than good.. people will see them as the enemy, much like we are seeing now

throwwit• 13 years ago

How does allowing a proprietary tech into the browser do anything more than harm the system?. Didn't this just open up the browser to possible secure channels for botnets? Do DRM concerns trump security?.

kineticfocus• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-in-the-door_technique

bingeboy• 13 years ago

OMFG!

jcromartie2• 13 years ago

Aaaaaaand the W3C is now officially irrelevant.

titaniu• 13 years ago

W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

I think I threw up a little in my mouth when I read that.

tzs• 13 years ago

Actually, they are green-lighting EME, not DRM. EME can be used as part of a DRM system, but it has other possible uses. For instance, one could build a nice system around it to allow a group of friends or family to share private encrypted movies or images.

ramigb• 13 years ago

Fuck the greed, the amount of work that will be wasted from both sides of people trying to implement DRM and others who are trying to bypass DRM should be spent on something more useful like agreeing for once at already implemented standards and making them work cross browser, or implementing new better solutions, but no, it's important to protect Miley Cyrus' songs or the universe will collapse.

robmcm• 13 years ago

So implemented DRM will still need to be supported on different platforms and browsers, and after the H264 crap what are the chances of that happening?

They would be better off having some sort of plugin archetecture that allows this kind of development for specific platforms...

X4• 13 years ago

They got perfectly subverted. I hope they revoke it, can somebody open a petition? I'll sign it!!!

cx42net• 13 years ago

Maybe I missed the point here, but firstly, browsers are free to choose to implement some parts of the W3C recommandations right ? and secondly, if the browser you use is implementing the DRM constraint, it's just a browser level restriction right? That mean you can either use a plugin that will fetch the blocked content or use an other browser to do it ?

This is doomed before being born (or I missed something).

vaibhav_kaushal• 13 years ago

Web is all about hollywood now, it seems!

vvvVVVvvv• 13 years ago

Oh, hi Minitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel), long time no see.

transfire• 13 years ago

The WC3 has sucked for ages. I can't wrap my mind around why anyone follows there lead anymore. Everything that comes out there is overly complicated and totally misses the larger picture. Sound like they've also sold out on top of that now. I say frail them.

pasbesoin• 13 years ago

I refuse to engage in blind trust, either that content will remain available (including that of historical or functional significance) or that -- encased in an opaque block -- it will be safely and fairly delivered.

DRM is a non-starter, for me. Keep your shit out of my peanut butter.

W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards

Related Stories