SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), a mechanism by which HTML5 video providers can discover and enable DRM providers offered by a browser, has taken the next step on its contentious road to standardization. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the standards body that oversees most Web-related specifications, has moved the EME specification to the Proposed Recommendation stage.
The next and final stage is for the W3C's Advisory Committee to review the proposal. If it passes review, the proposal will be blessed as a full W3C Recommendation.
Ever since W3C decided to start working on a DRM proposal, there have been complaints from those who oppose DRM on principle. The work has continued regardless, with W3C director and HTML inventor Tim Berners-Lee arguing that—given that DRM is already extant and, at least for video, unlikely to disappear any time soon—it's better for DRM-protected content to be a part of the Web ecosystem than to be separate from it.
Berners-Lee argued that, for almost all video providers, the alternative to DRM in the browser is DRM in a standalone application. He also argued that these standalone applications represent a greater risk to privacy and security than the constrained, sandboxed environment of the Web. He acknowledges that DRM has problems, chiefly the difficulties it imposes for fair use, derivative works, and backups. He notes, however, that a large body of consumers don't appear overly concerned with these issues, as they continue to buy or subscribe to DRM-protected content.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:14PM (12 children)
Fine with me. I won't install it. I won't watch their videos. I don't want any of that shit.
What they're trying to do is to take that choice away from me. They want to build it into the browser. I have to have a browser, so once they build it in to that, I can no longer simply say 'no' to them. If past experience is any guide it will be difficult to disable at first and over time they'll keep trying to deprecate and remove even the checkbox to turn the misfeature off.
No, no, no, a thousand times no.
"He also argued that these standalone applications represent a greater risk to privacy and security than the constrained, sandboxed environment of the Web. "
And I would argue that in the real world, the opposite is true, simply because people understand that there are privacy and security ramifications from installing a program to their machine while most do NOT understand when browsers are being used to the same affect.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:49PM (2 children)
>simply because people understand that there are privacy and security ramifications from installing a program to their machine
Citation needed. I mean sure, *some* people do, but in my experience the vast majority will happily install damned near anything if it's required to get access to the shiny thing.
I would certainly be in favor of a "this content requires DRM, allow? (yes)(no) [ ] always do this" dialog though
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
I cite your second sentence above in response to the first.
"I would certainly be in favor of a "this content requires DRM, allow? (yes)(no) [ ] always do this" dialog though"
I'd say that's the bare minimum a sane person would require at first blush, and after looking much more deeply at the situation I've come to the conclusion it's pitifully inadequate but yeah, still better than what will be shoved down peoples throats in the real world unfortunately.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:53PM
Sane and knowledgeable
You know that. I know that. Most people don't know that. Or don't care. And "most people" are the wind by which companies sail.
As for an "allow DRM" checkbox - I don't see that it actually dos much for most people, it's just convenient for those of us who wish to boycott DRM content, and for that I bet a "DRM system activated" warning plugin would do just as well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:14PM (6 children)
EME doesn't hurt you on its own. The user still needs to install the actual DRM extension separately. EME just creates a standard API for such extensions to exist. The EME code itself can be open-source, and no closed-source code is leaking into Firefox from it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:38PM (4 children)
And?
"The EME code itself can be open-source, and no closed-source code is leaking into Firefox from it."
So?
Seriously, why would I care about any of that? I don't worship open source code, I want software that respects my rights.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)
That seems like a contradiction to me, but whatever. The fact that it's open source means that you (or anybody else) can fork Firefox and remove the EME code if you really want to. I'll bet somebody will.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:33AM (1 child)
Free Software is software that respects your rights. Open source may or may not do so, and many advocates of open source only care about technical quality and would gladly use proprietary software if it was better in that sense. If you're looking for a movement that focuses on ethics, then that's the Free Software movement.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:32PM
A distinction which I am aware of. I usually use the term "open source" as a catch all because "free software" implies "free as in beer". Which is also similarly misleading, because it doesn't make sense unless you say "free as in 'free beer'".
Anyway the difference is usually moot for consumers; open source code can almost always be co-opted by free software groups, like how OpenOffice was forked into LibreOffice. And in this case, it's whether the source is open to modification and redistribution that matters; that criteria is met by both movements.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:23PM
There's nothing contradictory about it at all.
"The fact that it's open source means that you (or anybody else) can fork Firefox and remove the EME code if you really want to. I'll bet somebody will."
That remedy remains legally available, in theory, but it's not actually a remedy for this problem.
I understand this is a subtle point, it's taken me years to grasp it, but the problem here is not just technical, it's largely social and legal. It may make relatively little technical difference, to someone that is technically literate, but it has a tremendous influence on the behavior of those who are not, and once they have been herded into place the rest of us are effectively disempowered and silenced.
As an example, let's suppose there is a media file produced by the government which I have every legal right to see - but they choose to publish it for me using a proprietary DRM system. This is a common problem. When I try to explain to them that this method of 'publication' fails, it's MUCH easier for me to explain, not just to them, but to everyone else that might have influence or input as well, it's MUCH easier to get them to see the issue if it's NOT using some sort of published 'standard' to legitimize itself. It shouldn't be, it wouldn't be if we were all technically literate, but the fact nonetheless remains, it IS.
So it's vitally important that this sort of thing be blocked from incorporation in any sort of open standard. Regardless of the technical facts, in the popular mind, this grants the scum an aura of legitimacy, and often even cuts off our right to object in any way.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:35AM
The user still needs to install the actual DRM extension separately.
In practical terms: not really. An EME blob is bundled with modern releases of Windows, and with Chrome. The user doesn't get to opt-out in either case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
You could simply not visit the website... No one is forcing you to click a link or type in a URL, certainly trying to trick you, but not forcing. Why is not installing an app different from not visiting a site? Why is one a valid excuse and the other isn't?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:12PM
The web as originally designed is a safe place, by design, it allows you to communicate without installing arbitrary programs to do so.
Installing a program on your computer is absolutely unsafe, by design. Virtually any non-trivial program must be installed with permissions sufficient to cause serious damage in order to be useful.
They're using the web like the apocryphal slow-boiling frogs trick* - what started as an inherently safe activity has been transformed, step by step, into a distribution system for malware.
*Doesn't actually work on frogs, but seems to be doing great on humans.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?