Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-can't-beat-'em dept.

An anonymous coward writes:

"In March, 2013 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, proposed adopting DRM into the HTML standard, under the name Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Writing in October 2013, he said that "none of us as users like certain forms of content protection such as DRM at all," but cites the argument that "if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C" as a reason for considering the inclusion of DRM in HTML.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has objected, saying in May of last year that the plan 'defines a new "black box" for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user'. Later, they pointed out that if DRM is OK for video content, that same principle would open the door to font, web applications, and other data being locked away from users.

public-restrictedmedia, the mailing list where the issue is being debated, has seen discussion about forking HTML and establishing a new standard outside of the W3C."

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Informative) by romanr on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:39AM

    by romanr (102) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:39AM (#1303)

    There has been quite a bit of discussion about this topic, for example here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/03/159238/tim- berners-lee-w3c-approve-work-on-drm-for-html-51 [slashdot.org] . I'm not sure, if this story is enough groundbreaking for the front page.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by clone141166 on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:03AM

    by clone141166 (59) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:03AM (#1327)

    When I first saw the headline I thought the same thing, but given the context of SoylentNews (nerd news) it seems like an important issue anyway. While it might be old news, the article is well written/edited imho, and provides a number of links that sum up everything that has happened so far with the story.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:58AM

    by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:58AM (#1450) Homepage Journal

    if they fork the html standard it will become big news

    i mentioned this on slashdot when it came up, but a lot of people seem to direct their hatred of drm at the concept of a drm standard, which i think it wrong.
    we already have drm... there is nothing we can do to stop that.
    the only variable is what form that drm takes and what software is required to use drm-protected content.
    currently drm is a mish mash of various proprietary systems... so depending on where you access content from you may need multiple programs to access drm protected content.
    i think the concept of a common standard for online drm isn't a bad idea if you can access drm protected content from various sources with just your web browser. it's also likely to me more reliable and less restrictive than a proprietary system that some corporation like sony or microsoft controls.
    those that think having a standard for drm will make it more prevailent should take a look at the trend that's occurring regardless... the only question is what direction this trend should take... various closed proprietary standards or a single open w3c standard

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:12AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:12AM (#1491) Journal

      Long-term, one of the best ways of fighting DRM is to make it expensive and make the monopolies end up in the wrong place. DRM was killed on music by Apple. They ended up with a near monopoly on online music distribution, and the cartels that owned the copyright saw a choice between DRM or keeping control over their channel. With the status quo, we're likely to see the same thing for video, with Netflix instead of Apple: the studios have to either license their content for DRM-free distribution, or let Netflix completely own the distribution channel. Why? Because every existing device can play DRM-free H.264 content, just as every existing music player when the iPad was dominant (including the iPad) could play DRM-free MP3s.

      The record labels wanted to recreate competition in the retail market, and the only way of doing this was to allow anyone (except, for a little while, Apple, so the competition had some first-move advantage) to license their content for DRM-free distribution. That meant that they didn't have to create custom players (software or hardware) and the playback devices became competitive commodities (hundreds of Chinese companies would compete to make the cheapest MP3 player and let the labels keep the profitable bit of the business).

      The same will happen with video. Eventually, the studios will realise that DRM doesn't give control to the copyright holder it gives control to the retailer, and that they are the ones that are insisting on DRM, but they are not the ones benefiting from it.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:28AM

        by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:28AM (#1511) Homepage Journal

        i agree

        fortunately, a w3c standard for drm won't hinder efforts to kill drm... it's just a standard

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:38AM

      by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:38AM (#1541) Homepage

      The best way to keep DRM away is to not make a standard.
      Currently it is a real pain to deliver content with DRM. If there was a standard way and it was implemented on enough systems it would be very easy for a content provider to start using it. There is no additionall cost to the provider.
      A standard does not offer anything to the user, so why would I want to install a browser which makes it easier for content providers to screw me?

      • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:11PM

        by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:11PM (#1551) Homepage Journal

        with proprietary drm you're screwed even more

        i see your point about it being more difficult to implement drm without a standard, but unfortunately it's happening anyway, so despite the difficulty the benefits must still outweigh the costs, and proprietary drm providers will lock consumers into their own little drm ecosystems where basically it's their way or the highway

        not saying drm would be any better under a w3c standard (it would still suck) but if i'm going to eventually have drm shoved down my throat (and i expect it will eventually happen regardless) i would rather it be through my favourite browser than being forced not only to endure drm, but to endure it through proprietary ecosystems like silverlight or flash

        there's no doubt that drm is a stinky turd, but we need to think about how to make the inevitable impending stink just a little more tolerable

        i also think that user disdain and market competition will keep the use of drm under some level of control; as long as there are options for the consumer, content providers will necessarily have to be wary about the potential backlash and exodus from their services

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:08PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:08PM (#1708) Homepage Journal

          With DRM NOT a standard I don't have to deal with it at all; I simply refuse to have anything to do with anything having to do with DRM. If it were a web standard I would have to deal with it.

          I DON'T NEED "content." Hell, I create content. But I refuse to buy content, I buy physical, non-DRM media that contains content. If I pay my money I want what I pay for to be MINE.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:00PM

            by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:00PM (#1905) Homepage Journal

            I DON'T NEED "content." Hell, I create content

            so you eventually going to write all your own books, music, movies, websites, etc. whilst the rest of the world moves on (one way or another)? good luck with that

            If I pay my money I want what I pay for to be MINE

            i don't think you've grasped the concept of copyright... if something is copyrighted by someone else, you don't legally own it regardless of how much you paid or how it is physically/digitally/otherwise protected

            • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:34AM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:34AM (#2072) Homepage Journal

              I already write books, music, and, websites*. And I used to write computer programs, too (Two were registered with the copyright office and the most common remark was "how the hell did you get that little computer to do THAT?). Before CSS was cracked I got movies from TPB simply because the pirate version is superior to watching from DVD - hit "play" and the movie starts without any unskippable shit like trailers and piracy warnings. Now that we have CSS I buy DVDs. When Blu-Ray is cracked I'll get a Blu-Ray player.

              And free, unencumbered content is not going away. Baen Books has tons of science fiction, all free for the reading at their website. Doctorow puts his books on BoingBoing for free. Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning is better done than a lot of movies I've paid for and is funny as hell.

              Just as there is open source software, there are "open source" books.

              You want music? Go to archive.org, there's some great indie stuff there. DRM is for giant corporations, not people. Fight the monster, buy books from Baen. Get RIAA music and hollywood films and printed books at your local library if your city doesn't suck.

              DRM will only take over if we accept it. I refuse to.

              i don't think you've grasped the concept of copyright... if something is copyrighted by someone else, you don't legally own it regardless of how much you paid or how it is physically/digitally/otherwise protected

              Indeed, when you buy Foundation you're not buying a novel, you're buying a BOOK. You own the physical object and the publisher can't take it back or restrict you in any way. You can sell it, give it away, use the pages for toilet paper, whatever you want. Same with a DVD or any other physical media - you can do anything you want legally, except publish copies. Unencumbered media can be backed up legally, DRMed content cannot.

              That is as it always was. Paid for downloaded media? You own nothing. They can take it away or restrict it any way they want, with no legal restrictions against them doing it. I own one copy of Foundation, and am free to do anyhing except republish, which is as it should be. It is physical property, I OWN it. They cannot take back real books or CDs, they can with DRMed downloads. Fools "buy" DRMed content.

              And don't forget, the concept of DRM was defeated before and will again. Back in the late '80s and early '90s DRM boycotts put publishers out of business and it died for a decade before the RIAA resurrected it, and DRM on MP3s died. The same will happen with books and movies.

              DRM IS EVIL. Don't accept evil.

              * See the journal I posted here today, it's a fifteen year old rerun of some of my old content, with a little new thrown in. It was a popular site in its day.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:30PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:30PM (#1685) Homepage Journal

      we already have drm

      We? Speak for yourself, I refuse all DRM. I used VCRs until deCSS came along (cracked DRM is hardly DRM), still have no Blu-Ray player because I REFUSE TO BUY ANYTHING DRM. Period.

      YOU have DRM. WE don't.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:56PM

        by crutchy (179) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:56PM (#1903) Homepage Journal

        "we"... meaning anyone with an ipod, ipad, iphone, etc that use itunes, and people who have blueray, etc.
        if you really think the number of people who deal with drm doesn't constitute "we" then you need to get out more.
        if you don't use anything drm, that's fine. if you think you'll never have to... well you're saying that you'll eventually never download any copyright content. if you're an old fart i wouldn't be surprised if you also said once that you'll never visit a website with advertising on it.

        • (Score: 1) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:36AM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday February 19 2014, @01:36AM (#2073) Homepage Journal

          I am not part of your "we" and I posit that there are probably quite a few others here who also don't fit your "we". And I don't use iTunes but aren't the MP3s unencumbered with DRM?

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org