Reject DRM and You Risk Walling Off Parts of the Web, Says W3C Chief 433
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."
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the way the DRM crowd thinks.
"Remove potential profits and you remove the strongest incentive for those making new movies or developing new technologies."
There is always potential profits. Movies were profitable before the web existed, they're still profitable today and they'll still be profitable in the future whether DRM is implemented in the web standards or not.
In fact, having a standard implementation is worse for these companies because it will be a lot harder to replace once its broken and only a fool would assume that it won't be broken almost immediately.
Trouble is, no matter how much a movie (or anything else) profits, the suits always think they can squeeze a bit more out of it, especially if they can pass the footwork of doing so off to a third party. Typically the government (in the form of new laws) but in this case a standards body.
"One compromise might be trying to apply the same rules that the drug companies operate under. They are given a chance to recoup the substantial R&D costs and turn a profit but after a certain number of years they lose their exclusive rights and others can create generics."
If only! The drug companies are given a certain number of years (currently 20 if I'm reading Wikipedia right.) The copyright cartels are given practically indefinite protection (currently 95 years for corporate works and almost certainly to be extended again when our good friend Mickey next risks hitting the public domain.) Both numbers are the US terms. Other jurisdictions may differ of course but we're talking about US firms at the moment so best to use US numbers.
The copyright industry has a far far better (for them) deal than the drug companies do, legally speaking. What they lack is enforcement abilities -- any kid anywhere in the world with enough brain cells clicking the right way can break a DRM scheme and distribute a movie to anyone else in the world and be nearly untraceable.
On the other hand, it takes large factories and the ability to purchase and handle often-dangerous chemicals in order to create, pack and distribute prescription drugs at scale in any sort of safe manner, whether or not you hold the patent on them. And if you do that outside of the US (where the patent may not apply) then you face import restrictions trying if you want to get your knockoff into the US market, so you're no further ahead by going international either.
Re: (Score:3)
Again as it has been talked about on /., these companies do not want others to create on there own, they want to own them, and by allowing DRM that is exactly were that dictatorship over internet by BIG media companies roots itself, you already have copyright trolls, and BIG media shutting down peoples music/videos/blogs claiming copyright infringement, let alone there propaganda and there false accusations over how piracy is destroying them.
Your point is correct but the reasoning is a little off. DRM in some movie that I've never watch in no way affects my ability to produce and distribute my own movie whether I choose to DRM it as well or not.
The takedown notices are a different and in my opinion a much more significant evil within the copyright law. DRM is constantly being used as a bludgeon rather than a deterrent but that's not intrinsic to DRM (just evil implementation choices) whereas the ability to enforce a takedown with no proof of
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Reject DRM in total and you will see a gradual decrease in the number of new movies which require millions of dollars to produce. I'm pretty sure crowd funding might not do the job.
Multi-million-dollar (per episode) production Game of Thrones seems to do quite well, despite being the most pirated TV show on the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Reject DRM in total and you will see a gradual decrease in the number of new movies which require millions of dollars to produce.
And nothing of value was lost. I doubt I will weep if Batman 23 or Fast and Furious -Grandaddy's Race is cancelled. It might actually be a good thing if the big conglomerates step out of the movie making business so that real filmmakers who have a passion for the craft have a chance to screen their movies at theatres instead of the Hollywood drivel currently crowding them out.
Re: (Score:3)
Only movies don't really require all that much money to produce, the costs are massively inflated, primarily by greedy producers and actors with big egos.
Re: (Score:3)
Reject DRM in total and you will see a gradual decrease in the number of new movies
The music industry spent around a decade refusing to sell music online unless it was wrapped in DRM, and they saw falling sales or stagnant growth. Recently the music industry gave up the DRM crusade and started allowing MP3 and other non-DRM music sales. And guess what? They started seeing better growth. Oh, some of them still pull out the bullshit line claiming "sales are declining", but the unstated details making that a bald LIE is that "physical disk sales are down" while digital sales are up resulting
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Ignored in the mailing lists (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
Reminds me of a quote... (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
That works both ways.
The fact that we already have DRM on the web without that DRM being embedded in the web standards also means that they don't need to be embedded in the web standards.
Companies that are petulant about their content on the web can just continue to do what they've always been doing.
There's no reason to change anything to to subvert the notion of open standards.
In truth, this beaurocrat is irrelevant. Worst possible thing for one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping closed-standards for DRM integration helps open standards? WTF? I think that's enough Slashdot for you for today.
I think he means that the current closed standards require closed viewers, or custom viewing software.
Yet this hasn't stopped the movie industry from putting movies on the web.
There is no reason why the web standards should bend to accommodate and prop up a failed business model.
Let them continue to use there ever easier to crack closed viewing software, or proprietary plugins.
Don't make it easier for them. Leave the DRM out of the open standard.
Re: (Score:3)
DRM does not require obscurity.
You could write a standard DRM, that was published publicly, and still have it secure. But there is no reason it should be written into the standard.
Given the use the rabble in the movie industry has put DRM to, there is no reason to create a standard DRM method, and doing so plays right into their hands.
Because once you embrace DRM as part of the standard it turns the community against itself, simultaneously trying
to perfect the standard that is being employed contrary to th
Re:Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
SSH is solving a different problem. It is protecting the information from middle parties, not the SSH client software itself. How would you write an open source ssh client that could display the results of an ls to your terminal, but the user couldn't change the code to write those results to a file as well? That's the DRM problem.
Providing a binary blob is security by obscurity, because it's difficult but you can debug and trace the assembly ... unless you have trusted pathways where your hardware and OS are working against you. Granted, the latter might be less obscurity and more deliberately inaccessible.
The best security is the kind I can hand you the source code and you STILL can't break it.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between SSH, PGP, SSL and the proposed DRM is that the former 3 are between trusted participants, the DRM scheme is trusted vs. untrusted (the user). Making that open source would completely undermine the whole idea behind DRM. SSL and friends are cryptographic solutions to keep communication private, it is implied that both participants in the communication are trusted. Not so with DRM, the whole reason these idiots even think that they need DRM is because they do not trust the receiving par
Re: (Score:3)
How is "Open source" different from "reverse engineered" in this scenario?
It's not, that's the point. You can't open source something that relies on obscurity to be secure. You can't come up with a DRM scheme that does not rely on you controlling both ends of the pipe. And even in the cases where big media does control both ends of the distribution pipe, you have people with cameras in theaters circumventing that - they've already lost the fight on their home field, this is our playground - they can't win. I, for one, am looking forward to attaching my debugger to their new "inno
Re: (Score:3)
Hence the movie studios' new-found fondness for 3D.
DRM as wall. Walls aren't all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, perhaps, if we reject DRM, the parts of the web we wall off are exactly the ones we should.
Music will be on our side of the wall; DRM is dead there. Seems to me that's a trend worth encouraging.
Re:DRM as wall. Walls aren't all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM as wall. Walls aren't all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM as wall. Walls aren't all bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
And oddly, the movie business is doing better since they started exploiting the net. I mean the Theater Business. Its still growing, in spite of the trash the shovel out these days.
It has actually increased, last year up by 6%, the year before up by 12%. [mpaa.org]
If movies on line were priced lower than they are their receipts would be up even more. The average CURRENT movie prices in Google Play Movies runs around $5-7 bucks for HD quality for one play. To own it, costs usually around $12 to $18.
Both the per-view and the Buy to Own are enough to keep me from buying or renting most of the drivel they shovel out these days. I might buy a view at $2.00, I might buy to own at $6.00.
Re: (Score:3)
It's often better than the movie itself.
Missing the point (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It has links to the article, try following them.
Their own CEO is quoted.
Each individual content decryption module (Score:3)
Standards are far more likely to be implemented for Linux than proprietary schemes.
Each individual content decryption module is not a standard; it's a trade secret. I see nothing to guarantee that a given content decryption module will be made available for all platforms that access the Web.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the impression that they have to have perfect DRM. Also, as to the "SOMEONE always manages t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
They are idiots.
There are two choices...
1)
DRM is embraced, studios put crippled, DRM-enabled content on the web
Outcome: The dumbest 1% of consumers pays for DRM streams, the other 99% goes to The Pirate Bay.
2)
DRM is not supported in web browsers.
Outcome: Studios don't put any content on the web, the dumbest 1% of consumers buys disks or whatever and the other 99% goes to The Pirate Bay.
Here's the far-fetched option 3:
DRM is not supported anywhere.
Studios sell on-line for a fair price in a real format.
Outcome:
10-50% of customers pay for proper, unencumbered content and the money goes to the rightful publisher.
The rest turn to The Pirate Bay.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing I've found is for everyone one who does know how to pirate media online, there are a number of friends and family who use some variety of sneaker net to get their shows from the person in the know.
Caveat: posting from Australia where DRM means we generally can't even pay for content if we wanted to due to region locking, so probably have a higher per capita pirate population.
Re: (Score:3)
Region locking? Call it what it really is, discrimination.
What makes you as an australian less worthy of being able to view content than an american?
And not only less worthy of being able to view, apparently your money is tainted so they don't even want that.
Thepiratebay isn't racist, they don't care where you come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to completely fuck up your own point by blaming the wrong group of people.
It's Publishers that don't value the consumer. It's Publishers that want DRM on everything they own the copyright for. It's Publishers that want to enforce these draconian rulesets limiting your access to content across various media so they can force you to pay per platform rather than per piece of content.
Get it right.
Walling off (Score:5, Insightful)
Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.
Re: (Score:2)
How can pirated software kill you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose your medical records were DRM'd and later became inaccessible?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Good, let them wall themselves off.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The Blasphemy and pornography are the best parts!
Never trust anyone who does not drink.
About Samizdat (Score:3)
Even at the lowest point of Stalinist regime, under extreme censorship, and with a constant risk of being ratted out, Russians still managed to exchange politically-sensitive information via samizdat [wikipedia.org], by reprinting works on typewriters.
I don't want to ruin your optimism, but samizdat did not influence Soviet politics at all. None of those dissidents started a political career, even after the USSR has collapsed.
While we can linger in our little digital darknets, the general population will be brought back under the control of elites. This process is happening worldwide.
how does the saying go (Score:5, Funny)
removing anything off the internet is like trying to take the pee out of the pool
Remove movies from the web? So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Remove movies from the web? So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is here to stay (Score:2)
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
Re:DRM is here to stay (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> So long as it works on Windows & MacOS
We already have DRM standards that fail this test.
Nice try.
Troll harder next time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Better safe than sorry (Score:2)
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.
So we should ban all region free DVD players? (Score:2)
????? ^^^^^
This isn't ascii art, I have no more to add :/
their movies aren't walled off now? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm unclear on the Chief's point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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].
two sides to this (Score:2)
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.
Re:two sides to this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
If they are not in the standard (Score:2)
then they won't be part of the web.
Cause and Effect... which is which? (Score:2)
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
I call your bluff (Score:3)
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.
Rejecting DRM is good (Score:4, Insightful)
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. Jaffee: (Score:2)
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
DRM itself isn't bad (Score:2)
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
Doesn't matter (Score:3)
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.
We should remember... (Score:2)
So let's provide the bricks! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Jeff Jaffe's Contact Info (Score:4, Informative)
The myth of an open DRM standard (Score:3)
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.
The Ben Tre solution (Score:3)
"We have to destroy the web in order to save it".
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, Jeff Jaffe needs to get a pink slip.
This should simply be viewed as treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. The whole point of DRM is to 'wall off parts of the web'... it exists soley to prevent people from accessing data, and has no other purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
> This obligatory comment is getting old. You are part of an insignificant market which makes the cost of supporting it not worthwhile. This is still the truth, so suck it up.
Well then you are destroying the basic premise of the web.
The moment you try to declare ANY set of users "too small to be worthy", you've completely lost the point of the world wide web to begin with.
THAT is the point of open standards. NO ONE has to be left behind just because some jackass wants to declare them irrelevant.