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: 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.