Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Media Software IT

Reject DRM and You Risk Walling Off Parts of the Web, Says W3C Chief 433

Posted by timothy
from the interesting-way-to-think-about-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Web technologies need to support DRM-protected media to reduce the risk of parts of the web being walled off, the chief executive of the web standards body W3C has told ZDNet. Dr Jeff Jaffe, CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium, says proposals to provide a hook for DRM-protected media within HTML, via Encrypted Media Extensions, are necessary to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reject DRM and You Risk Walling Off Parts of the Web, Says W3C Chief

Comments Filter:
  • Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#44126045)

    How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed. I'll be there's a copy on Pirate Bay. They seem to be under the impression that each individual pirate has to crack their weird schemes.

    Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.

    • Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moryath (553296) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:38PM (#44126109)

      Summed up better this way.

      If you reject DRM, you "risk" walling off parts of the Web.

      If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        we should just call these the netflix extensions. since they have google and ms on board and both have seemingly already implemented it, discussing about it is pretty meaningless. they wanted some new plugin hooks and they got them.

        • by Dahamma (304068)

          Whether you like them or not, they are definitely not just Netflix-specific extensions. If they are widely adopted by browsers all of the existing streaming services/content that use Flash for DRM will ditch it in favor of HTML5.

          Ironically, the big HTML5-EME holdout (not counting Firefox, which unfortunately as a 3rd party browser on all platforms may risk significant market share if they don't adopt it) will probably be Apple - but not because they don't want DRM in their browser. They are fine with DRM,

          • by hedwards (940851)

            Sort of, Apple just wants their DRM to only work with Apple devices until they have a monopoly over that particular area.

            And unfortunately, seeing as the DoJ looked the other way with respect to the ITMS they don't have any reason not to try again in the future.

          • by wvmarle (1070040)

            So imagine Firefox implements it, and manages to become approved.

            Within hours someone will have stripped the restrictions from the DRM scheme, allowing FF to play Netflix movies without restrictions on say saving the content to disk.

            Won't happen.

          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            Might not be do bad. Apple's video DRM was cracked nearly instantly and now it is a common source for high quality "web-rips". I'm all for the most incompetent and easy to crack DRM scheme being chosen, especially since circumvention for compatibility is legal in Europe.

          • by Alsee (515537)

            If they are widely adopted by browsers all of the existing streaming services/content that use Flash for DRM will ditch it in favor of HTML5.

            True, but your vision is still far too short.
            If this sort of DRM starts getting broadly deployed in browsers then some ordinary websites that despise hate ad-blockers (aka "thieves") will go through whatever radical contortions are necessary to only present their content through this system. The results will be a vile ugly and only borderline-functional as a webpage, but they will do it. And once some websites start doing it, there will be enormous pressure to "fix" the system so that those broken websites

      • Re:Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:58PM (#44126403) Homepage Journal

        Yes. We risk "walling off" Sony, Disney and the rest...

        Wow. A web the way I liked it, before big-media and commercial presence sought to replicate the AOL experience. :-)

        In fact, that's a great way to describe this: If you accept DRM in HTML, you risk the AOLization of the web.

        • Re:Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Spottywot (1910658) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:21PM (#44126699)
          Really don't know know why you haven't been modded up, the article is technically correct, but the parts that would be walled off would be the ones that are full of capitalist bastards. Say no to drm and reject the parts of the Web that none of us would visit anyway, happy days.
      • Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alucardX (734977) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:10PM (#44126547)
        If you feel this way then you need to let the W3C know. Join their mailing list and let them know how you feel. Right now they pretty much have a Netflix employee defending everything he can about DRM. The only people in opposition to it on that mailing list right now have a very small voice. Jump on and voice this opinion. Overwhelm them the way that we overwhelmed them with PIPA and SOPA.
        • Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gsnedders (928327) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @07:19PM (#44127781) Homepage

          As someone on countless W3C mailing lists: please don't. It's highly unlikely you're going to bring any new discussion points to the mailing list (sheer quantity of the objections is, sadly in this case, not going to change anything), as the topic has been discussed to death already.

          If you want to stop the specification, you're better off petitioning implementers to not implement it than the W3C; as it is now, EME is going to become a de-facto standard with the majority of browsers (by market share) supporting it regardless of whether the W3C publish any specification or not. Convincing the W3C not to standardize it will have no effect in the end, it'll just become a de-facto internet standard instead of a de-jure one.

          • Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lgw (121541) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @07:27PM (#44127847) Journal

            as it is now, EME is going to become a de-facto standard with the majority of browsers (by market share) supporting it regardless of whether the W3C publish any specification or not. Convincing the W3C not to standardize it will have no effect in the end, it'll just become a de-facto internet standard instead of a de-jure one.

            This is the most important point in this thread.

            A standard is precisely what the majority of vendors (by market share) do in the field. The W3C just writes a document that hopes to describe the standard, but standards are the result of vendors, not the result of standards committees.

          • by Arker (91948)

            It may not change the outcome in terms of browsers supporting it initially, but it would affect adoption and could still help head off disaster for web users.

            As well as rescuing W3C from complete oblivion. It may be that few of us ever cared about what they said, but that will become absolutely no one if they endorse this crap.

          • by Camael (1048726) on Friday June 28, 2013 @04:25AM (#44130199)

            It appears that others in the W3C mailing lists have in fact objected to the implementation of DRM in HTML5.

            They were instead shunted off to 'more appropriate forums' [w3.org] to discuss their objections.

            There are literally hundreds [w3.org] of emails there to plow through. Although there are many strong objections raised by different parties, the one who really seems to be pushing DRM is Netflix.

            Even the EFF have formally objected to the DRM scheme [w3.org].

            It also appears that the CEO of W3C [w3.org] is the one who made the decision.

            Are concerns taken seriously on the other mailing list, or is it a spot
            to send people to voice their concerns with other likeminded people?

            This discussion has gone all the way up to the CEO of the W3C, and
            that's where he has requested that the discussion take place. Given
            that this is ultimately a CEO decision, if you want to effect a change,
            following his advice makes the most sense.

            The current W3C CEO is Dr. Jeffrey Jaffe [w3.org].

            So in a nutshell, if you're wondering who to blame for EME in HTML5, thats the story.

      • by Valdrax (32670) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:37PM (#44126877)

        If you reject DRM, you "risk" walling off parts of the Web.

        If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.

        "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

    • It seems you're ignoring the point on purpose here. The W3C isn't forcing anyone to use DRM. The W3C doesn't care if your DRM works.

      The web is whatever "we" want it to be. Since there are companies using DRM on the web, it only makes sense to expand the specs to include that. It's just the next logical step towards finally killing Flash, Silverlight, etc.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        No, it means they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal.

        Flash at least does not demand your OS have a content protected path and actively fight your ownership.

        • by MrEricSir (398214)

          No, it means they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal.

          [citation needed]

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            I present the summary as my citation.
            This asshole says we have to accept it or they will take their ball and go home. I say don't let the door hit you where the FSM split you.

    • by DRJlaw (946416)

      How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed. I'll be there's a copy on Pirate Bay. They seem to be under the impression that each individual pirate has to crack their weird schemes.

      Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.

      You seem to be under the impression that they have to have perfect DRM. Also, as to the "SOMEONE always manages t

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        If you are in it for a living you might as well not waste your income on DRM. Because clearly it does not do a damn thing.

        The goal of DRM is laughable on its face. It does not work. You know what does though? Charging a reasonable price and not worrying about those who would have never paid.

      • by Darfeld (1147131)

        Casual Piracy is as easy today as in the early 2000s... Easier I would say. Go to TPB or any torrent agregator, search for the last movy you want, download in tens of minutes and watch it... in the emule's time (or worse) you would probably have waited a night or two, and you would be hoping not to get a porn file (or the revers).
        And for all I know, pirating games don't seems to be harder either. The only thing that change slightly is how you find the games.

        As for the Humble Bundle: Keep in mind the games i

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed.

      DIVX [wikipedia.org] worked, didn't it?
      I doubt it'd stand up to an attack today, but it was secure enough for its time.

    • by kheldan (1460303)
      If enough people reject DRM, then content providers will stop using DRM, or risk losing so much revenue that DRM will become entirely besides the point.

      Content providers need to accept that some piracy is always going to go on, and the tighter they clench their fists, the more of the content is going to run through their fingers.
  • Walling off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#44126049)

    Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.

    • Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.

      And by incorporating DRM in the standard, they're guaranteeing that this walling-off of content will become so much easier to do. The walling-off will even comply with standards, instead of being fairly ad-hoc and deviating from standards as at present.

  • Good. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tough Love (215404) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:35PM (#44126065)

    Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.

    • by fl!ptop (902193)

      Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.

      How can pirated software kill you?

      • I think you've got the question backward—it's "How can DRM kill you?" to which the answer is "metaphorically" with the possible post-script "it's a bit too late to protest hyperbole."
      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by erroneus (253617) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:02PM (#44126449) Homepage

        It's DRM'd content that kills. And it doesn't kill a person, it destroys culture and human legacy. Because when a thing is published and yet not available except under specific conditions controlled by a party, when changes occur, bad things happen to that content.

        It is a violation of the spirit of copyright law to have DRM. The spirit of copyright is that for a limited time, the work is exclusive to a party for licensing, publishing and distribution. But when that time is up, it SHALL fall into the public domain as a contribution to the collection of human works. The problem is the content will be lost forever before the content is released to the public domain and there is no financial incentive for publishers to publish DRM free content free of charge and certainly no such REQUIREMENT.

        Publishers think they "own" the content and I don't think that is entirely the case. The content is allowed under government blessing like a child. A parent has rights and responsibilities over a child until the limited term of parenthood has expired. The law doesn't allow a parent to kill a child or otherwise to prevent him from entering society. Additionally, other forms of abuse of children are illegal and/or prohibited.

        When a copyright holder engages exclusive rights, the second half is not being honored or guaranteed. That needs to change. Furthermore, the publishers need to be held to task and even sued over the loss of things which have already been lost.

        Human culture and history is being lost and it is significant. And the losses are due to be increasingly larger as content of today is almost exclusively digital in storage format.

  • Good (Score:5, Funny)

    by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:35PM (#44126079)

    Good, let them wall themselves off.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ducomputergeek (595742) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:50PM (#44126271)

      It's what is happening. I had a professor in college who predicted by 2015 - 2020 the internet as we knew it then would be over. It would be controlled by corporate and governmental interests and that would be achieved through fragmentation and the fact that the backbone of the internet is owned by just a hand full of companies worldwide. While we've not yet seen the fragmentation yet, we've heard grumblings. I think what Iran is trying to do is similar to how the Great Firewall of China proved the internet could be tamed far easier than most around here thought. If Iran is even marginally successful in creating a Jihadnet or whatever, look for other other countries to try and do the same.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        If we let them make DRM a normal part of the web it will go even faster.

        At least we can fight them on this. Someone will take a no DRM movie release risk and profit from it. That will be that. We already see this with things like comedians releasing their works this way.

      • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

        by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:58PM (#44126399)

        The term they used was 'Halal Internet.'

        'Halal' just means 'permitted under Islamic law.' The implication being that the internet outside is not permitted, because it is contaminated by unislamic content like blasphemy and pornography.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          The Blasphemy and pornography are the best parts!

          Never trust anyone who does not drink.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:36PM (#44126093)

    removing anything off the internet is like trying to take the pee out of the pool

  • by the_furman (931683) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:37PM (#44126095)
    I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way. It's the movie studios that will be diminished and, likely, quickly outcompeted in the marketplace. I think it's time to start full-stop calling all the bluffs.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      The fuss is they don't like what they can't control. They also think for some damn reason we should be happy to chain ourselves up.

      • by the_furman (931683) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:49PM (#44126253)
        Oh I get that. What I don't understand is why anyone should care. If movie studios (or whoever else) want to make themselves insta-obsolete by refusing to embrace modern technology, so what? The market will provide other less short-sighted sources of entertainment.
        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          You hit the nail on the head.

          The real fear is now that DRM free content is slowly coming it challenges the old guard. They have to stop that now or they will never be able to.

    • by Pinkfud (781828)
      Movie studios should remove their garbage from everywhere, and we should stop paying them money that they use to shaft us with.
  • As long as it remains relatively unobtrusive. That was its problem in the early day, DRM was overly restrictive and made things a PITA for most ordinary users to use it. Apple figured out a way to do it where DRM was there, but was relatively unobtrusive. The studios et. al. learned. So long as it's easy to use and stays out of the way of what most people want to do, i.e. view content online easily, it will remain. When most people go to Netflix, so long as the movie they click on starts to play, they

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:41PM (#44126159)

      The problem is it cannot be unobtrusive and work with an OS I want to use.

      Sure I can tolerate it on my ps3, but not on a real computer.

      DRM on music is now dead, books are next, then movies.

      • Unfortunately, you don't matter.

        So long as it works on Windows & MacOS as well as iOS, consoles, and most brand name Android devices that's enough to reach the overwhelming number of people on the planet. Most of whom don't care about DRM so long as it works on my X device.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          That is what they said about music. Look what happened there.

          If you want to sell things to less tech inclined folks I matter a lot. They ask me what service is the best, or product. You had better believe I steer them towards things that avoid this sort of BS. MP3s without DRM from amazon for instance.

        • by medv4380 (1604309)
          I'd be more happy if it worked in browsers outside of IE more.
        • by jedidiah (1196)

          > So long as it works on Windows & MacOS

          We already have DRM standards that fail this test.

          Nice try.

          Troll harder next time.

    • by Brandano (1192819)
      But guess what? Cracked content is even less obtrusive. A movie where the DRM has been stripped will play on pretty much any machine, and not only on those that support a DRM scheme. And it will keep being accessible onche the DRM technology is obsolete or support for it has ceased. I can't see DRM ever compete with that. Did copy protection save the CD?
    • Apple only managed that because they controled the service, software, OS and hardware - and even then, their DRM was cracked in more ways that I can even bother to count.

  • Keep your restricted content off the web so we don't have to worry. I am sure people will rise to fill the gaps left behind with freely redistributable content. See, Problem Solved.

  • ????? ^^^^^

    This isn't ascii art, I have no more to add :/

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:48PM (#44126239) Homepage Journal

    they're all behind drm now. so what's the deal? it's not like netflix has non drm content section. it's not like I can buy movies on physical media without some sort of drm on them. so what exactly would they be removing?

    why do we need another plugin system, when we have one that works perfectly well for the drm? what's in it for w3c? cash? why would the studios be anymore interested in porting their drm schemes to exotic hardware if you provided them with a new plugin system.

    that the organization has a CEO is a failure in the first place - fuck 'em.

    oh we need them because ms discontinued silverlight and netflix needs a new plugin.. yeah, perfectly good reasoning, that we need this or netflix goes out of business out of spite. and one thing mr ceo these 3 companies.. haven't they ALREADY fucking implemented the thing? didn't I just read about it a few articles ago? what the fuck do we need the EME standard for if they already did it, they as companies are who is pushing for it and they as companies can do it regardless of what W3C does or doesn't do. only thing your stamp is buying you is couple of free lunches and some budget money while taking it up the ass.

    why don't you make like an unicorn and finally tell us what HTML5 actually encompasses instead of latching on more every year so we could finally perhaps have html5 compatible browsers - not that it matters since it seems webkit and IE11(or whatever) are actually the defacto standard here.

  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:49PM (#44126255) Homepage Journal

    Dr Jaffe misses the point.

    Yes, opinions about whether DRM should be in HTML vary, and some people are very opposed to it, and have a perfect right to be. Reasonable people can disagree.

    However, the proposal isn't DRM in HTML, it's worse. It's a way to call DRM plug-ins. It doesn't standardize the DRM, or the plug-ins, or the language the plug-ins are written in, or in any other way reflect the notion that HTML is a platform in and of itself, independent of the layer it runs over.

    Indeed, it doesn't specify anything that cannot, today, be done via plug-ins.

    As such, it's a stupid addition to web standards. It's pointless. It will not make studios suddenly excited about using the web, because if they're excited about using the web they're already using it with the existing plug-in framework. And it will not stop content providers who demand, rightly or wrongly, DRM, fleeing the web, because it doesn't add anything.

    This proposal should not appear in the HTML standards. It should never have even been considered for inclusion.

  • by intermodal (534361) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:50PM (#44126279) Homepage Journal

    What he said is along similar lines of "If you don't use something other than Linux, you're probably not going to be able to watch Neflix." Or "If you don't let the TSA molest you, you won't be allowed on the flight."

    The Chief here says basically that if you don't let them have their way, you won't be able to use their services. And I'm not sure I give a damn whether their services get used in the first place. That's time I could use to practice guitar instead, but honestly, I'm lazy enough and easily distracted enough that as long as things are easy to use, I'll still get home, sit online, and then wonder when I drag myself to bed, "where the hell did my evening go?"

    So to those who would wall off portions of the internet, I say bring it. I need to finish learning the solo from Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" anyway.

    • by greg1104 (461138)

      The Chief here says basically that if you don't let them have their way, you won't be able to use their services.

      That is the only useful point to take away from this. DRM advocates regularly use extortion tactics to get what they want. The most important thing to know about paying protection money is that you'll keep paying forever once you start. Even worse, the earlier money collected will be backing later threats. Kipling got it right a long time ago [poetryloverspage.com].

  • On the one hand, I can't watch netflix on linux, because the DRM isn't supported. Netflix is a part of the net that is already "walled off" to anyone who doesn't have an account, but it's walled off to me right now even though I subscribe. That sucks, and it would probably be avoided if Firefox and chrome support DRM as suggested.

    OTOH

    I can easily foresee a world where pretty much all the content is restricted. Not just movies. News. Weather. Slashdot. Everything will be DRM protected.That sucks worse.
    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:04PM (#44126475)

      DRM cannot be open-source, for an obvious reason: If it were, you could just comment out the 'don't copy' line and recompile. The proposed HTML DRM scheme isn't a DRM scheme itsself, but an API by which a propritary DRM binary can be loaded and interface with the browser. So even if Firefox and Chrome supported the API, the DRM vendor (ie, Netflix) would also have to release a linux binary - and given the difficulty of ensuring the DRM is secure on an OS where everything from the kernel to the video driver is subject to user modification, there isn't any chance of that happening.

    • by tlambert (566799)

      On the one hand, I can't watch netflix on linux, because the DRM isn't supported.

      Or Amazon premium content or Youtube premium content or Google Play premium content, all of which use Adobe FlashAccess DRM.

      Of course you could always just buy an LVDS capture card and remove the DRM...

  • then they won't be part of the web.

  • Gee... if content is easy to access and affordable, then (most) people won't pirate it. People that still do would have done it no matter what - they're not your customers and you're NOT losing money by them doing so. (sure, it's not fair, yada yada)

    But - when content is not easily and affordably available (say, because you "removed content from the web to protect it from piracy"), that's exactly what ENCOURAGES normal people to consider pirating in the first place. Those ARE their "customers" who would

  • by Aaden42 (198257) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:58PM (#44126405) Homepage

    ... to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy.

    Last I checked, the movie studios need our money more than we need their movies. Remove content from what is increasingly becoming the de facto way of purchasing entertainment, and they stand to lose far more revenue than is "lost" to illegal copies.

    The music industry seems to have successfully had a clue rammed down their throat, at least with regards to selling DRM-free music. The movie industry is long over due.

    I say call their bluff. Let's see who blinks first.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @04:59PM (#44126419)

    The problem with W3C's argument is it fails to recognize the enormous market value in making sure content is accessible to most number of eyeballs possible.

    If megamediacorp wants to distribute content anywhere to any device any browser then they can't use technology not widely deployed or implemented. For example requiring third party plugins could provide missing functionality but they take a hit in knowing their content is not universally reachable.

    If instead you just give in and widely implement whatever blackbox content feels will protect their content today then media companies no longer feel any pressure not to DRM/encrypt EVERYTHING and before you know it all content is DRM'd.

    As a practical matter I never understood the DRM issue as the simple truth is that if you can decrypt it to view it you can certainly copy it. The only way for DRM to actually work is a fully trusted environment where the user is denied full access to their devices and physical hardware is tamper proof. Even if this were achivable nothing stops out of band re-recording of media. Not only is DRM evil but it is pointless... a total waste of time and resources as were the DVD and Blueray copy protection schemes. It can't work unless everyone is denied the right to own a general purpose computer.

  • Dr. Jafee:

    Pursuant to your comments reported on 27 June 2013 on ZDNet.com:

    You're fired, for cause, effective immediately. Please collect your personal belongings and vacate W3C premises no later than 17:00 local time today.

    Regards,
    The Web

  • In general terms, Digital Rights Management isn't necessarily a bad thing, and used properly can be very helpful. The problem is so many companies wielding DRM like a club, and bludgeoning their customers about the head and shoulders at every opportunity.

    Look at iTunes, Steam, Netflix/Hulu ... all examples of DRM done right. They make it inconvenient to copy/pirate their content, while making it extremely convenient to use that content "properly." Watching movies, playing games and listing to music are si

  • by asmkm22 (1902712) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:16PM (#44126619)

    It doesn't matter if DRM is built into the web or not. As long as there are no legal and fairly-priced methods to access media on the internet, someone will step in and provide it for free via torrent or whatever else can be used. By all means, build some DRM protection into HTML, and watch as every little entertainment publisher builds their own walled garden anyway.

    I'd be fine with DRM if it didn't take away from the experience. Games that don't work, shows that aren't released until a year after they air, music that can only be played in certain devices and only as long as they can "check in" every once in a while, etc, are all examples of how to piss off your customers enough to turn them against you and your business model.

  • by Chas (5144) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:20PM (#44126675) Homepage Journal

    Uh, yeah.

    This content is ALREADY walled off from the net.
    The bricks of that wall are DRM!

    They essentially set up a completely one-sided transaction here.
    We pay them so they can tell us when and where and how many times we can view content we paid for.
    And if we disagree? Fuck us! They have our money. We can just NOT have access to something we've paid for.

    The whole piracy argument is maybe about 5% fact and 95% bullshit.

    DRM is about increasing monetization of their content at the expense of open access. Piracy could drop to zero and they'd STILL claim losses to piracy.

    Let these greedy money grubbers pull their content from the web!

    All the smart content providers will stay, understanding that piracy and DRM is simply an expensive game of escalation where the only winners are the people selling their crappy DRM schemas. They'll continue to make money.

    And all the rest of the jackasses who've pulled their content from the web can bitch about how their declining revenues are to be blamed on piracy, rather than their own stupid short-sightedness and greed.

    In short, the old axiom proves true. If you don't want to lose control of something DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB.

  • by marnues (906739) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:29PM (#44126801)
    http://www.w3.org/People/Jeff/ [w3.org] I'm emailing him to tell him that DRM content is walled off from the web. DRM is not open content and has no place on the web. Let content providers who do not adapt die off. Doesn't matter if they are large movie studios or not.
  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @05:42PM (#44126941) Homepage

    You're wrong, Mr. Jaffe. Any website using DRM is "walled off" by design. Adding Encrypted Media Extensions to HTML5 doesn't change that, although it does allow its proponents to falsely claim that, as part of the standard, it opens up protected content to HTML5-compliant browsers instead of being tied to proprietary platforms like Flash and Silverlight.

    Standard or not, encrypted HTML5 video will only run on platforms that support whatever proprietary DRM scheme the content producers have chosen. Instead of needing something like Flash or Silverlight, "DRM Flavor X" will be required for content to be decrypted. Since DRM schemes are only effective when users cannot alter them, there will never be such a thing as Open Source DRM. Open Source browsers that wish to be compatible with "DRM Flavor X" will therefore have to either incorporate proprietary code (in object form rather than source code) or rely on proprietary DRM hardware to handle decryption and display. Either way, it's "walled off" and proprietary.

  • by cas2000 (148703) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @09:49PM (#44128715)

    "We have to destroy the web in order to save it".

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller

Working...