Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday April 29 2016, @10:03AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the all-your-videos-are-belong-to-us dept.

The working group that is drafting the W3C's Encrypted Media Extension (EME) specification (aka DRM in HTML5) is baking in language that would allow the DMCA to be invoked despite denials that "EME [is] putting DRM in HTML".

The EME is a set of predefined javascript functions that invoke functions in Content Decryption Modules (CDM) and CDMs are containers for DRM functionality. It's simple and innocuous but how it's worded and what they refuse to define is where the danger lies.

First, the EME is hooked to the DMCA by using very specific legal language: "content protection". One of the people working on the specification freely admits that "it is well-known that the purpose of content protection is not to prevent all unauthorized access to the content (this is impossible)" but despite the fact that it cannot protect the content, the entire working group insists on this very specific language and has refused alternative wording. The reason of course is because "protected content" is the legal term that DRM implementers always use.

Second, the EME is hardware specific by refusing to make a specification for CDMs. By not defining how CDMs are implemented, this leaves it up to each browser author to invent their own. All existing implementations of the CDMs are done using non-portable binary plugins that execute directly on your computer. This means that if a website is using a CDM that isn't ported to your specific browser, OS and architecture, you cannot view the video on that page. So if your computer runs on PowerPC instead of x86 you are out of luck, every site using CDMs will be out of your reach. That's not all, despite having a 4K SmartTV, you can't watch Netflix in 4K because it uses PlayReady 3.0 and it was reveiled last year that PlayReady 3.0 is only for Windows 10 and requires hardware DRM. Specifically it uses an instruction set extension to use a hidden "security processor" which is only in the latest generation of Intel and AMD chips.

All proposed alternatives to the legal language and a legitimate alternative to hardware specific lock-in were rejected by those drafting the EME. After looking into their backgrounds, I found that the group is composed exclusively of Microsoft, Netflix and Google employees.

If you wish to express your concerns, you can still do so on the github issue pages:
Issue #159: Remove all "protection" language
Issue #166: EME specification needs to include a CDM specification


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 29 2016, @10:27AM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday April 29 2016, @10:27AM (#338844) Homepage

    First, the EME is hooked to the DMCA by using very specific legal language: "content protection". One of the people working on the specification freely admits that "it is well-known that the purpose of content protection is not to prevent all unauthorized access to the content (this is impossible)" but despite the fact that it cannot protect the content, the entire working group insists on this very specific language and has refused alternative wording.

    Ugh, really? You're going to quibble over that?

    Locking your car won't stop anyone breaking into it if they really want to, but that doesn't mean it's not safer (more "protected" if you will) to do so.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:49AM (#338854)

      There's a more fundamental problem [gnu.org] with that terminology.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 29 2016, @01:53PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:53PM (#338916)

        I'm generally a fan of RMS but that list is so ridiculous that it would be impossible to have a conversation with the guy without being stopped every 3 seconds for him to correct you. And most of the reasons not to use each term are extremely subtle, nitpicky differences anyway. As an example:

        “SaaS” or “Software as a Service”

        We used to say that SaaS (short for “Software as a Service”) is an injustice, but then we found that there was a lot of variation in people's understanding of which activities count as SaaS. So we switched to a new term, “Service as a Software Substitute” or “SaaSS.” This term has two advantages: it wasn't used before, so our definition is the only one, and it explains what the injustice consists of.

        See Who Does That Server Really Serve? for discussion of this issue.

        So basically the same as replacing "cloud" with "cumulus" just because we don't like it? Anyone with half a brain knows that the could isn't something to blindly trust. I don't see how replacing the term with a very slightly different one that nobody will be able to remember helps remind us of anything but the urge to punch people who insist on it.

        it wasn't used before, so our definition is the only one

        Invented here, so better!

        and it explains what the injustice consists of

        It really doesn't.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM (#338919)

          knows that the cloud

          God, I'm on some sort of typo rampage lately. Don't know what's going on :P

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @03:45PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:45PM (#338990) Journal

            Maybe that Spelling as a Service offering wasn't as good as you thought? ;-)

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Friday April 29 2016, @05:56PM

              by JNCF (4317) on Friday April 29 2016, @05:56PM (#339070) Journal

              Service as a Spelling Substitute, you mean.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:58PM (#338921)

          I'm generally a fan of RMS but that list is so ridiculous that it would be impossible to have a conversation with the guy without being stopped every 3 seconds for him to correct you. And most of the reasons not to use each term are extremely subtle, nitpicky differences anyway.

          I don't think they're nitpicky. Corporations have pushed these buzzwords and confusing language upon us, usually with the intent to deceive. It's important to fight back against faulty assumptions, confusing terminology, and outright lies.

        • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @02:06PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:06PM (#338928) Journal

          So basically the same as replacing "cloud" with "cumulus" just because we don't like it? Anyone with half a brain knows that the could isn't something to blindly trust.

          (I'm sure you meant "cloud" instead of "could")

          Not everyone knows, and I can prove it to you: if everyone had thought about what "the cloud" meant, then this wouldn't have been funny:

          https://xkcd.com/908/ (The Cloud) [xkcd.com]

          I LOLed, I believe I've half a brain (didn't dare to ask my wife to check), ergo not everyone with half a brain has thought about the physical backing of the nebulous "The Cloud" concept.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM (#338944)

            A) For the purposes of this discussion I'm considering all the marketeers and salespeople who sell The Cloud to not have half a brain.
            B) I don't follow why thinking the joke is funny requires you to not understand The Cloud.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @05:12PM

              by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @05:12PM (#339038) Journal

              A) fair enough

              B) I don't follow why thinking the joke is funny requires you to not understand The Cloud.

              well, in my personal case, i haven't had very much dealings with The Cloud yet.
              So, I just hadn't thought about what it all means, when I read the XKCD cartoon and laughed and a little lamp went on above my head. It *IS* somewhere, in someone's basement or datacenter.

              Probably more robust than that, replicated, and with multi-continent failover, etc. etc., but as customer you can't tell if a cloud provider saved on all that expensive stuff by not doing it because "it hardly ever goes wrong anyway".

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Friday April 29 2016, @03:16PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday April 29 2016, @03:16PM (#338975) Homepage Journal

          I disagree with a lot of that page, but not the part the AC linked. Copyright is an author's and publisher's legal protection. Saying "protected content" is a disingenuous way of saying "under copyright".

          --
          Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday April 29 2016, @06:58PM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday April 29 2016, @06:58PM (#339102)

          It signifies the difference between owning a movie and subscribing to a pay-per-view service. Instead of owning software that could works for decades we are being pushed into subscription services, with the measly benefit of using their servers for storage. Cloud services could easily be replaced with personal clouds, its not like it would be hard to code "use our cloud service, or specify your own location". SaaS is rent-seeking bullshit with a convenience factor that magically opens wallets of people who don't know better or who have no choice.

          That said, there are legitimate cloud services. The easy litmus test is: could it run on your computer without an internet connection?

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 29 2016, @02:51PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:51PM (#338961) Journal

        Indeed. They're up to their old tricks, pushing their propaganda. The most fundamental tricky mistake they make, seemingly on purpose, is conflating copying and stealing. From the W3C document on Encrypted Media Extensions:

        "DRM is commonly used to ensure that products (videos and other media) are not stolen or copied."

        How many times do we have to go through this? Plagiarism is stealing. DRM does nothing to prevent plagiarism. Assuming for the sake of argument that DRM worked, how exactly does it ensure that media is "not stolen"? It doesn't. They are talking about their dubious expansion of the meaning of "steal". They are sneakily implying with this language that to copy is to steal.

        I don't care for the use of that word "products" either, though I know that usage has been accepted for decades at the least. Problem is, "products" confuses people, gets some to accept a mindset in which a too extreme notion of property rights is applicable to copies of art. Ought to call them "works". As for the related term "producer", there are many other workable terms.

        The W3C better be careful. They have no legal standing to impose a standard, no authority to shove propaganda down our throats. If we don't choose to follow part or all of their so-called standards, they can't force us. If they get too stupid, we can dump them. We can fork or replace HTML any time and they can't stop us.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by jimshatt on Friday April 29 2016, @08:31PM

          by jimshatt (978) on Friday April 29 2016, @08:31PM (#339145) Journal

          We can fork or replace HTML any time and they can't stop us

          This recently almost happened, HTML5 being a spec originally developed by WHATWG because XHTML failed to impress (partly due to Microsoft / IE). It was only when W3C adopted development of HTML5 that they became relevant again.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Soybean on Friday April 29 2016, @01:43PM

      by Soybean (5020) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:43PM (#338905)

      The problem is the deliberate connection to the DMCA wording in order to maximize legal consequences for people who bypass the DRM for whatever reason, including security research. It proves that the whole farce is not about technical measures but about legal measures.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:44PM (#338906)

      The only group the locks on my car are locked to is the car manufacturer, and the keys came with my car when I bought it. I don't need a Target-specific key which is only available for Ford to enter the Target parking lot.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Jiro on Friday April 29 2016, @03:35PM

      by Jiro (3176) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:35PM (#338984)

      Ugh, really? You're going to quibble over that?

      Yes. Using those exact words has legal consequences because of the DMCA.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday April 29 2016, @10:41AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @10:41AM (#338846) Journal

    Why would I want to watch a DRM protected content?
    If they don't want to show it to me freely, then I'm not going to watch it. Billions of people don't and still live, I think I'll manage to do the same.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @11:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @11:13AM (#338858)

      The danger is that it will seep into all kind of places that is was never meant for. Just like Flash, or XFA pdf forms.

      I then foresee a future where you cannot do your job or tax application properly without having a stupid binary DRM plugin.

      - moondrake

      • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Friday April 29 2016, @12:07PM

        by bitstream (6144) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:07PM (#338874) Journal

        Well the tax office can have it on 6 point font from the laser printer. It's readable, and then someones elses problem.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Friday April 29 2016, @01:19PM

          by Hyperturtle (2824) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:19PM (#338898)

          The problem seems to be that the more people don't watch these things and enjoy the restrictions provided by our benevolent content industry, the more the industry and those associated with it will in turn accuse people of violating the social contract. What I mean by that is that they will aggressively pursue profit they believe they are entitled to, due to having 'lost' it.

          People may be accused of being pirates -- we see that already.

          What I am greatly concerned about is that adblockers and noscript will become unuseful due to a widespread adoption of DRM on things that do not need it, like ads, which then could feasibly refuse to display the rest of the site because the script for DRM didn't finish. No content for you because that requires tracking--and verification you actually sat through the commercial and so on... THe only good thing is that the javascripts at least run locally and so we have an element of control over them, and can get to see what's in it if we choose to look -- a server side thin client aspect would greatly limit our views into this stuff.

          But I dont want them running stuff locally when I connect to "a server"... and windows 10 is taking away those administrative capabilities slowly and surely. Soon we won't even be able to see it because only hackers will mod their computer.

          Just like the FCC and the wifi firmware stuff, it likely will become a crime to modify the OS managed by your OS Vendor, or add hardware without a seal of approval, or use any defeat device -- like tape backups that aren't going to a cloud. Local content is EVIL! You may only buy it once, and you need the 8 track, cassette, DVD, gold DVD, remastered box set, the itunes, the amazon prime, the google play, the pandora versions. You need to buy them all, because if you rip it yourself it can't authenticate to your unique windows identifier and thus won't play... that's a future I worry about, all websites and all content included.

          I can easily see it happening that if you can't be monetized like all of the others, even after you make the "purchase" (lease?) then you are violating the EULA and will be be denied.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:51PM (#338912)

            Well, the thing is that it's only a matter of time, probably months, before whatever new restrictions module that's shipping with Firefox 82 and Chrome 104 has an open source alternative. Content providers can't move in lock-step. They have to have backwards compatibility. The goal of "protecting content" and digital restrictions management is an utterly wonky goal.

            So you mean to tell me, "content producers" (because you ain't the only people capable of producing content I want to watch, but you are really fucking good at canceling series that I'm really in to after 2 seasons), that what you intend to do is require me to run a program on my hardware that contains that will use a private key that is on my machine to decrypt your content? Laughable.

            If it's not me personally circumventing it with an open source alternative restrictions module, somebody else will, and I'll just grab the torrent, tyvm. I mean, half of what I torrent these days are webrips. Whether or not it's in HTML or whatever other bullshit, it's broken. I have access to whatever content I need without any restrictions. Now if only the "content producers" had a cup for me to throw spare change into. People doing things like Star Trek: Renegades (as far as I'm concerned, this is Star Trek XI) and Star Trek Continues have tip jars! Why don't the "content producers?!" How do they ever expect to see any of my money, even some spare change, because I enjoyed 2 seasons of V or Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles even though they just fucking canceled both series before the story was nearly complete?! I'm not paying upwards of, what are they asking, $40 per season, $80 total for 2 seasons, for the first half or first third of a story!

            But! What we have to fear is not some technological bullshit wankery. Apparently people will produce content just for a love of stories that should have been in the public domain long ago. Killer robots from the future! A lizard people invasion! To boldly go where no man has gone before! Granted, ok, V and Terminator don't quite have the appeal of Star Trek. But I mean fucking hell! Star Citizen is now a AAA hundred million dollar budget game and we didn't need no fucking suits to make that happen. Maybe a 0.01%er threw in here or there, but they can't breathe down any necks this time. Yeah, yeah, I'm pretty sure Squadron 42 will come out yet this year. Yeah, yeah, I remember Freelancer had the same hype. The stuff they've released and I've personally played as a backer is already pretty damn impressive. And this time there's no fucking suits to tell the people who are creating this experience that they need to release something now OR ELSE! I guess what I'm saying is that we're pretty close to living in 2112 but we are at a juncture where we can decide that we truly want to glorify the works of gifted men.

            I believe what we have to fear is called TISA [personalliberty.com].

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:50PM (#338958)

              What's irritating is the presumption that everything needs to be designed with the assumption that protected content is the rule and the public domain is the exception. That's not what the intent of copy protection laws should be. The intent should be to expand the public domain and things should be designed with the presumption that the public domain is the rule and protected content is the exception. But since corporations write laws the public domain has basically disappeared and the wrong assumption needs to be made. Content can't be circumvented because it will never enter the public domain anyways so why does it ever need to be extracted in a format that everyone can freely view it in? That's the wrong way of looking at things and copy protection laws need to be fixed.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @03:46PM (#338991)

              Well, the thing is that it's only a matter of time, probably months, before whatever new restrictions module that's shipping with Firefox 82 and Chrome 104 has an open source alternative. Content providers can't move in lock-step. They have to have backwards compatibility. The goal of "protecting content" and digital restrictions management is an utterly wonky goal.

              That is an unfounded assumption for two reasons:

              (1) "open source alternatives" are illegal under the DMCA. Technically they are not illegal to posses and use, but they are illegal to distribute. [wikipedia.org] You can write your own, but you can't give it to anyone. So in practice they are illegal.

              (2) They do not need to be in lockstep. They certainly can require that users upgrade to the latest version. After all if you are streaming their video on the network you can also upgrade to the latest DRM software overr that same network. Chances are it will just happen automatically and invisibly the way chrome and firefox auto-upgrade today.

              The guys doing this are very smart assholes. They know that DRM is not 100% effective. They don't care. They are happy to make it 95% effective and whether that effectiveness is accomplished through technology or laws is irrelevant to them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @11:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @11:53AM (#338866)

      Why would I want to listen to music packaged with a stupid album cover?
      If they're don't want to release it without that album cover art, then I'm not going to listen to it. Billions of people don't and still live, I think I'll manage to do the same.

      Stupid argument, no? But what's the difference from yours? You're conflating two unrelated things - the thing you ought to be interested in, and some anciliary thing that shouldn't be the thing you're interested in. Had your argument been "Why would I want to have to jump through all the hoops that are necessary in order to watch DRM protected content?", then you may have had a point. But you didn't, you said "Why would I want to watch [it]?". The only answer to that question should be "because it's a good program" or "you wouldn't, because it's a crap program", independent of any crypto boondoggles it may be bundled with.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday April 29 2016, @12:05PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @12:05PM (#338871) Journal

        Why would I want to listen to music packaged with a stupid album cover?
        ...
        Stupid argument, no? But what's the difference from yours?

        Yes, indeed, it's stupid. And since you ask, here's my answer: the difference is that I can dispose the stupid cover and still listen to the album, every time and any time I want, as much as I like (within the limits of the storage durability).
        The moment DRM let me do the same, I'll change my opinion.

        The only answer to that question should be "because it's a good program" or "you wouldn't, because it's a crap program",

        Let me translate for you: anything packed in DRM is crippled, thus crap, so why would I want to watch crap?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 29 2016, @10:48AM

    Some quality trolling of douchebags there, Gravis. I tip my hat to you, sir.

    --
    When responding to comments, please do not use phrases like "just how stupid can you be". Some take that as a challenge.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @10:58AM (#338855)

    Why is a global standard hooking into a specific law in a single specific country? I know American's don't like to admit the rest of the world exists, but this is ridiculous. Once again special interests are bastardizing what should be an open process based on the best technical solutions not the desires of minority groups subverting the process to fullfil their narrow desires.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by inertnet on Friday April 29 2016, @12:30PM

      by inertnet (4071) on Friday April 29 2016, @12:30PM (#338887)

      That's (among other things) what TTIP and TPP are for. To give American companies the power to go after anyone outside the US with US laws.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @01:57PM (#338920) Journal

      Why is a global standard hooking into a specific law in a single specific country?

      It's actually worse than that (seriously); the stated purpose for the World Wide Web Consortium, who makes this standard, is:

      https://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission [w3.org]

      "
      Design Principles

      The following design principles guide W3C's work.
      Web for All

      The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability. Learn more about:

              Web Accessibility Initiative
              Internationalization
              Mobile Web for Social Development

      Web on Everything

      The number of different kinds of devices that can access the Web has grown immensely. Mobile phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, interactive television systems, voice response systems, kiosks and even certain domestic appliances can all access the Web. Learn more about:

              Web of Devices
              Mobile Web Initiative
              Browsers and Other Agents

      Vision

      W3C's vision for the Web involves participation, sharing knowledge, and thereby building trust on a global scale.
      "

      (emphasis mine)

      In my humble opinion, this DRM plan goes against everything that the W3C stands for, and should therefore be slowly *eradicated* by the W3C if that is in its power (for example, by setting an HTML standard that *doesn't* mandate this useless baggage).

      According to the theory of evolution, traits that cost energy/money but are not beneficial to the species get weeded out over time. The human race needs facile communication; it doesn't need DRM roadblocks. A HTML standard that's easier to implement on everything and by everyone is a better HTML standard.

      "Building trust on a global scale" doesn't involve opaque binary blobs controlled by some foreign company, either.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @02:42PM (#338950)

      Exactly - The people in my Government have not voted for the DMCA, it does not apply here, nor do we want it.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Friday April 29 2016, @11:48AM

    by ledow (5567) on Friday April 29 2016, @11:48AM (#338864) Homepage

    Do what you like.

    My money goes to the places that cause me least hassle. This doesn't mean DRM is an absolute blocker (Steam is perfectly fine and has the balance just right). It just means that the first time I'm asked to upgrade to Windows 10 with a certain chip just to watch a movie, I'll watch it elsewhere or not at all.

    Honestly, past childhood, you wean yourself off certain content in certain formats delivered in certain ways, no matter how much a "fan" you are of something.

    The day my video stream stops working in my - otherwise perfectly usable - browser, I stop using it and/or paying for it.
    The day I'm asked to buy specific hardware to use a specific service on my laptop, I stop trying to use that service.

    Have you not noticed that the rest of the world has gone the OTHER way - everything going towards HTML and streaming and not worrying about the stream being trivially copyable - away from anything like Flash, Silverlight, etc.?

    The days of installing a binary plugin are over, because exactly the problem stated all along with them has panned out - Flash isn't supported on platforms because it's binary incompatible and nobody but the manufacturer can create/recreate it accurately enough on those platforms, so you can't even get Android versions of it any more. Java on desktop is dead because it was abandoned by its manufacturer for no real reason other than they won't update to modern standards (they could make a modern plugin that's not a Netscape plugin, but they can't be bothered). Quicktime ended up in a serious of security flaws that nobody could be bothered to fix for years until it got to the point it was just dangerous to continue running. Silverlight only works on licensed platforms thus immediately limiting its audience.

    But plains streams on plain HTML5 work just fine pretty much everywhere.

    Honestly, it's easier to just not consume your content, and kids these days are absolutely baffled that website X doesn't work on device Y, or that they have to have plugins (what are they?) or that they can only get app X on platform Y. They expect press-and-play no matter the platform, and no DRM will give you that. And if they can't find it legally, they'll find other ways.

    Don't step up back 20 years for the sake of gaining some kind of exclusivity when modern streaming services literally just have everything everywhere with one click and no hassle, legitimate or not, and even things like "watch as much as you want for X per month".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2016, @01:42PM (#338904)

    I bought the right to make copies the moment i bought a copy machine.
    In my case, it's called a "computer". F#cking outlaw the computer already!

    I assume this is just the first step in many to turn yar regular
    universal copy-machine ("computer") into a remotely managed limited copy machine.

    Like always, it's about money and whoever is behind this, is banking on the
    endless (clueless) masses of sheeples that will justify the crippling of the
    universal copy machine.

    There ARE reason for DRM, but methinks it means that a person or a company OWNS
    all universal copy machines in question.
    For example, a hospital, has many many computer and it owns them all.
    So it can implemented a DRM on its computers and network, that allows, for example,
    certain sensitive data to be viewed only on certain computers.
    For example a MRI can only be viewed on certain computers in certain rooms (doctors
    room, discuss results with patients) and copies cannot be made by the room-cleaner
    "accidentally wandering in with a USB stick", or viewed by the computer in the reception area.

    Discussing implementing DRM over the internet boils down to the question if you want to
    allow a foreign company to remotely control your computer and what you can do with it.

    Of course, if you're paying for more then just hardware, chances are very good that
    a company already can remotely control it.

    DRM is backed by big money ("weeeh, shiny photons and air vibrations"); we are in the phase
    were the backers are trying to figure out what the color, flavor and texture of DRM will most easily
    be accidentally ingested by the sheeples ...

    "dIGITAL-rights-management: it's like teaching a fish to fly".

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM (#338946) Journal

      I think your hospital example is just "encryption". I'll try to give a better example of the difference between "encryption" and "DRM". I don't remember if I read this or made it up myself, and I don't remember anyone saying that I got it wrong:

      Preamble: the house
      You have paid for a house. You consider yourself the owner of your house. All the legal paperworks says that you are the owner of the house, to do with what you like.

      Encryption, foundation layer.
      Your house has doors. The doors have locks. The doors can only be opened with a set of keys. The only normal way to use the house is to use those keys to unlock the doors, so you or anyone else can enter and leave through the doors. (This example doesn't concern breaking a toilet window and crawling through it).

      Now comes the difference between encryption and DRM:

      Encryption.
      You own the keys to the doors in your house. You have the keys. You can pay a locksmith to make copies of the keys. Noone but you and people you gave (copies of) the keys to (e.g. neighbours or visitors who stay over) can enter your house normally.

      DRM.
      A second party ("concierge"? [wikipedia.org]) owns the keys to the doors in your house. They have the keys. You do not. You can enter and leave "your" house normally, as can your guests, as long as:
      (1) this concierge is willing to unlock the doors for you
      (2) this concierge is able to unlock the doors for you, e.g. not bankrupt or stopped existing (Microsoft PlaysForSure [wikipedia.org]).

      Please, tell me if this analogy is wrong.

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM (#338955) Journal

        Oh and another thing for my house DRM example:

        For the system to be profitable to the concierge, it is essential that your house trusts the concierge more than you.

        That is the meaning of the word "trust" in Trusted Computing. Trust the one who holds the keys, not the so-called "owner".

        I think this may be on-topic if you ever want to buy a new general purpose computer:

        Why is the latest Intel hardware unsupported in libreboot? [libreboot.org]

        Why is the latest AMD hardware unsupported in libreboot? [libreboot.org]

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 29 2016, @10:46PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Friday April 29 2016, @10:46PM (#339226) Journal

          Just FYI your second link contains FUD, the AMD PSP security module is ONLY in their embedded chips, specifically the ones based on the Jaguar/Puma architecture, so unless you buy a tablet running AMD or one of the 4 socketed Puma chips this module is NOT included. All of the X86 chips including the latest AMD FX do not have this module and neither do their latest mainstream APUs, which is why they are not used in corporate laptops that require hardware DRM. There was talk of adding it later but it was never added and no Zen layouts that have been leaked so far include the ARM PSP module so it looks to be a dead issue except for those 4 chips. Source... provided. [tomshardware.com]

          BTW this is the newest source I can find, everything on the AMD website regarding the PSP module hasn't been updated since 2013 so I think we can safely say that as of this date in 2016 its a non issue for over 95% of the chips AMD makes. Oh and if anyone wonders why they would put the PSP module in a chip that is really only used to make cheap HTPCs? The Jaguar/Puma core is the same one used in the PS4 and XB1 so its for the consoles and AMD is just selling off the APUs that didn't hit the clocks/cores required for use in the console line.

          That said they run OpenELEC Linux just fine so they make great Kodi HTPCs and I have yet to see any software in the wild that can actually use the ARM PSP module (unlike the Intel TPM) so it appears to just be a bit of dead silicon left over from the console sale.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @10:56PM

            by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @10:56PM (#339229) Journal

            Thanks hairyfeet, I'll remember that when I have budget to buy a new computer.

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:47AM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:47AM (#339273) Journal

              You're welcome. I am AMD exclusive at the shop and put my money where my mouth is, my personal PC is all AMD (FX-8320E, R9 280) and its a great system, plays games like a boss while giving me the cores I need for music editing and video transcoding. You can look up the die layouts for both the FX and the AMD mainstream APUs and there isn't any ARM PSP module so if not having DRM baked in matters to you? There is really only AMD left, maybe a couple of the low end Pentiums and Celerons.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @03:53PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:53PM (#338997) Journal

        A second party ("concierge"?)

        Prison guard.

        Maybe we schould call DRMed content "imprisoned content".

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Friday April 29 2016, @03:32PM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 29 2016, @03:32PM (#338982)

    So we are replacing shitty proprietary plugins like Flash and Silverlight with.... more shitty proprietary plugins. yay standards!

    • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday April 29 2016, @06:26PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Friday April 29 2016, @06:26PM (#339082) Journal

      Yeah, I don't think this really matters. It's not universally usable, so it's just a plugin with W3C support. W3C has never really dictated what runs on the web, browser makers were implementing purposefully different behavior to conform to old bugs all along. W3C only changed their docs to mostly match reality after WHATWG was formed. This will be (slash-has-been) implemented, but it won't matter. It's still sort of annoying that they're even trying.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 29 2016, @10:25PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Friday April 29 2016, @10:25PM (#339217) Journal

      Hey give Flash the credit it deserves! Did you see Adobe attack Gnash with a DMCA? Nope. Did you see Adobe stop any program from making or using a Flash decoder that wasn't made by them? Nope, in fact most FOSS players like VLC and MPC-HC could play Flash no problem without ever touching anything by Adobe. Adobe also had no problem with you bundling either their player or any other in any distro you liked, no cease and desist or army of corporate lawyers attacking.

      This is why I TRIED to warn everybody that HTML V5 was a trojan horse, it was being made with too many nasty actors like Apple and MSFT getting their two cents involved, and that we needed to hang onto Flash until we could come up with something truly better, that used less resources, supported everything Flash did, and ran on even more systems with even less restrictions. Instead what we are gonna get is "iDRM" that will be tied to the latest hardware (thus pleasing Apple and MSFT) with a significant barrier to entry (thus pleasing Google who will just tie it to their proprietary playstore) and will leave everyone else with nothing but a bunch of big black "you cannot view this content" boxes where huge chunks of the web used to be.

      And the worst part? There is not gonna be a damned thing you can do about it now, the fight is over. Flash is dead and just like "works best in IE" was forced to become a "standard" because MSFT was tying everything together nowadays all the content producers look at Apple's profits and just drool so as long as it'll run on iCrap? It'll become the "standard".

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 29 2016, @10:04PM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Friday April 29 2016, @10:04PM (#339209) Journal

    And full of shit for saying we needed to hang onto Flash until we had something truly functional and as easily used cross platform with open alternatives available like we had with Gnash....well guess what? All you guys that cheered HTML V5 here ya go, its a big fat DRM gift to Apple, MSFT, and Google. Gee sometimes I really hate being right.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.