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: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:23PM (16 children)
And how exactly do you imagine they are going to hasten it's demise? All evidence is that, for now at least, the overwhelming majority of the population barely knows what it is, much less has any coherent objection to it. And the publishers certainly have no objection.
So, at present the options seem to be:
1) Continue not supporting it, and make everyone continue to deal with crappy insecure DRM plugins and applications that expose them to all kinds of risk
2) Start supporting it, and contain the DRM vulnerabilities within the browser, which should already be going above and beyond to protect the user from many similar threats.
3) Get enough people to completely and vocally boycott DRM that the publishers abandon their quasi-religious commitment to it and make it easy for everyone to copy everything they release.
I *really* don't see 3 happening any time soon - there's just too many people who've got to have their Netflix, etc. fix willing to fund the current DRM regime.
And between 1 and 2 - well I trust the browsers makers with my security a LOT more than the publishers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:28PM (9 children)
You forgot option four. Stop supporting it and do not allow plugins in your browser that do support it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ShadowSystems on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)
I wish there was a "Oh HELL YEAH!" or "I'd upvote this by a trillion if I could!" moderation catagory.
I don't accept DRM in my products just like I don't buy food soaked in Bubonic Plague & for the exact same reason - it's unhealthy & will seriously ruin my day.
I won't accept an extension that enables it because the browser is already an insecure cluster fuck as it is, it doesn't need even MORE vectors from which a zero day exploit can render my machine FUBAR.
Do I pirate? No. Do I buy DRM media? No. That's because I vote with my wallet as the only viable way that one of us common folk can give TheFinger to those DRM spreading bastards.
I'd sooner give Typhoid Mary some French kissing than let an MPAA/RIAA fucker near my computer - at least there's less of a social stigma to the plague.
*Moons & gives a double handed TheFinger to the MPAA/RIAA & it's ilk*
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:17PM
Good for you, I approve.
Now, are you doing anything to actually make DRM less prevalent or invasive - such as motivating vast hordes of the techno-incompetent to follow your lead? Because otherwise you're just covering your own ass while virtue-signaling.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)
If you practice option four ("Stop supporting it and do not allow plugins in your browser that do support it") alone, you will be considered acceptable collateral damage. The only way for option four to make a noticeable difference is to encourage others to follow you in doing so, which turns it into option three ("Get enough people to completely and vocally boycott DRM").
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:14AM
I was speaking from the point of a browser coder not an end user. It would only take three browser makers blocking any plugins with DRM and there would be no more DRM on the web.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WillR on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:42PM (2 children)
If the Muggles all install Flash because that's what they have to do to watch Hulu and Amazon and install Silverlight because that's what they have to do to watch Netflix, then the vast majority of browsers have those plugins installed. Then web devs see 90%+ availability for those plugins and start putting other useful non-DRMed content in that format just because. And then we're back to the bad old days of "This website requires Adobe(r) Flash(tm). Click here to install the Flash(tm) plugin." banners everywhere.
Better to put DRM in one standardized plugin that does nothing else. The attack surface is smaller for everyone and the people who want to disable it can, confident that they'll never need to install a fscking plugin just to see whether the 2018 Chevy Whatever is going to have six front-seat cupholders or eight*.
*I have no idea why, but auto manufacturer sites were the absolute worst at requiring 10 megs of Flash to present information that should have been a <table>.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:19PM (1 child)
Then web devs see 90%+ availability for those plugins and start putting other useful non-DRMed content in that format just because.
Soon, all content was DRMed because DRM was ubiquitous and easy. Soon all content was perpetually owned by corporations and only rented to users. Textbooks and knowledge articles were available, but only to those who could pay.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:44PM
Soon, all content was DRMed because DRM was ubiquitous and easy.
It's about 10 years too late to start worrying about that, Netflix and its associated DRM crap come preloaded on everything from PCs to refrigerators. The question that remains is "do we want to be patching Flash exploits forever, or not?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday March 22 2017, @09:06PM
+1000 upvotes as well
Netflix is my only exception, but I have a stand alone device that I can isolate on the network. I have to view it effectively as Netflix's equipment within my network and protect the rest of my network accordingly. All of that original content Netflix is creating? Available for torrenting as well. Which would defeat the convenience factor of Netflix, but also would be without DRM.
Hmmm, how many people out there are offering DRM free product? It's not zero, but it's not enough either. If I could have a system that was completely DRM free? Bye, bye Netflix. I'll still pay you, but I won't actually use you. Just your content without DRM. Ultimately, DRM is an external agent of the Corporate State within your own computing systems. That is intolerable, but put up with by many because of the engineered lack of choices.
No compromising. No settling. No blobs. No binaries. Absolute transparency. Absolute control. That is the only future for personal computing worth fighting for. It is diametrically opposed to DRM since it could never let DRM have more control than the true owner of the device.
If we have to sacrifice for awhile, so be it. Tim Berners-Lee has decided to compromise and that's unfortunate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @09:32AM
Also known as the They'll use native applications rather than the web solution.
This is already how 'premium video content streaming' is done on mobile. Netflix already have a desktop Windows app, but most people use a browser instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:09PM
the obvious answer for anyone who isn't a stupid whore is #1. We should continue to make these scum make their shitty plugins and eventually they will become ostracized. it's already happening, it's just going to take a while b/c most people are ignorant slaves that still use slaveware platforms like windows and mac. getting these soda guzzling fat asses to quit paying hollywood for drm'd shit it won't happen over night but making DRM legit will make it nearly impossible.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)
Option one is best. It means DRM content remains a second class citizen, with obvious annoyance to the user. DRM content requires tracking down and maintaining special players. DRM content is assured to have problems playing everywhere, again annoying the user. Every security exploit enabled by closed media players and the chronic incompetence and evil of the developers behind them is another blow for liberty. The collateral damage must be considered acceptable losses. This is war; people get hurt in wars. We didn't start this war, we shouldn't ever intentionally harm people who aren't active on the Pro-DRM side, but if we overly concern ourselves with civilian casualties we will lose the war for the Open Internet and the civilians will get boned anyway. Probably forever.
The more annoying DRM content is the more attractive the content from the guys flying the Jolly Roger becomes. This dynamic succeeded in breaking the music industry, there is no reason to believe it won't work exactly the same with video and apps. And notice that the music industry is still in business despite their dire predictions. And make no mistake, this is also about apps and operating systems, Hollywood is just fronting the efforts with money, higher prestige and their ownership of the mass media to assure the argument is a one sided amen chorus but the app makers also yearn for a locked down platform along with the OS vendors like Microsoft and Google. Apple of course already HAS a totally locked down platform on mobile and is only awaiting the right time to lock the desktop.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:09PM
You seriously overestimate the knowledge and concern of the average user.
Anyway you will still need to install and maintain annoying extensions to access this content. Isn't that the same thing?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)
I fail to see how DRM itself adds any more substantial annoyances to the user than are already there. The DRM is typically implemented as some sort of applet, or embedded in a platform that provides numerous other features as well. Flash, Java, etc,etc,etc. - DRM comes "free" for the end user with software that they already need to get other features.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:35PM (1 child)
Yes. And everyone hates Flash because there is one thing you can be assured of... it is outdated and must be updated before the page you want to see can be displayed... or you click the "show me anyway damnit" button. Java was so horrible for so many years you can't even use it anymore because no browser will allow it. Same for Silverlight. That is what I am talking about, DRM being associated in the average user's mind with lame, annoying crap.
So here is the state of play now:
Legit video content:
Easy to locate and buy content.... if available and compatible, etc., otherwise impossible.
DRM encumbered, meaning annoying in the ways I already enumerated.
Usually expensive.
Region locked, not usually an issue here in the U.S. but a big one everywhere else, even Canada.
Guilt trip free
Pirate Bay / Usenet / Etc:
Uneven quality
Harder to locate less popular content
Risk of your ISP giving you problems unless you invest time and effort into a VPN or trade by sneakernet
Guilt trip because it is in fact stealing.
Content that plays effortlessly everywhere, forever.
What we have to do is make the pirate option enough better that average people begin to prefer it to avoid the annoyance of 'legit' media's lockdown. Then the big media industry will have to decide whether to go down with all flags defiantly flying or surrender to the customers. We know what the music industry decided. We have to apply enough pain for them to give up their dream of unlimited monopoly rents and eternal DRM enforced copyrights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:37AM
Guilt trip free
You're giving money to scumbag corporations that bribe our government to get ever more draconian laws passed, so I think you should feel guilty.
Guilt trip because it is in fact stealing.
Making a copy of something doesn't make the original vanish and doesn't incur any additional expense upon the author. The only way you can possibly reach the conclusion that it's stealing is if you assume that potential profit is in fact a physical possession that the author owns before he/she even has it, but that requires that the author owns your money before you even agree to give it to them, which is patently absurd. Obtaining something that costs money is not necessarily stealing if you get it through copying (for the reasons previously mentioned), so that argument doesn't work either. Enough of the propaganda. [gnu.org]
But that's not to say that I support people sharing this stuff, because I don't; that just gives more publicity to the evil corporations that produced it. Boycott it all, I say.