SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by clone141166 on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:44AM
I don't think DRM in any form is a good idea. I think the problem with it being standardised is twofold; firstly it appears like the W3C is promoting/in favour of the widespread use of DRM (I realise this probably isn't the case, but it can be construed that way), and secondly it reduces the technical barrier for those who DO want to implement DRM systems.
I don't see how restricting content through the promotion of DRM can possibly "lead the Web to its full potential", which is supposed to be the W3C's "mission".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:08AM
IANAWD.
I believe the issue is that the current state of affairs is that DRM is handled by Flash or Silverlight. My spectator's eye view says that most of the HTML standards work over the past few years has been trying to claw back things that have been handed over to Flash.
So this brings up the question of whether you really want to claw back DRM. If the answer is no, then DRM is going to stay in Flash-world, and I'm guessing that things tangentially associated with video playback (controls, etc.) will also be segregated to Flash-land. If the answer is yes, then getting everything into HTML-land may be possible.
Once again IANAWD, so I can't really tell to what extent the current state of affairs is problematic.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by Statecraftsman on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:16AM
I'm going to say yes to clawing everything into free software but no to DRM. Whatever time it takes to circumvent DRM (and there'll always be a way) will not be worth it for the vast majority of people. So just make it easy and charge people. If that doesn't work I question the value of your work in the first place.
(Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:03AM
the issue isn't about drm or no drm... you will get drm forced on you regardless of what the w3c does... do you like silverlight, or would you prefer something built into firefox? if you hate silverlight and flash, you should support the idea of a w3c standard
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:15AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:26AM
with closed source proprietary drm that's true, but it may not have to be that way... it could use something like encrypted handshaking or something (there are no doubt much more creative folk working on projects like openssl that could respond more intelligently regarding more open alternatives to these concerns).
(Score: 1) by githaron on Tuesday February 18 2014, @02:43PM
OpenSSL and other encryption projects work as open source because they are only trying to hide information from unauthorized users, not everyone but the sender. In other words, if Alice is talking to Bob, Bob and understands the conversation but Eve just hears a gambled mess.
With DRM, it is the equivalent of Alice talking into a box, giving the box to Bob. Bob has to hold the box up to his ear and push the button to hear the message. He tries to do anything unauthorized, the box will try to detect it and not play the message. The only thing that is keeping Bob from hacking the box to get it to do what he wants is the box's undocumented complexity. Being box-savvy, Bob knows that there is a key hidden in the box that if he puts it in the right place the box will do what he wants but he doesn't know where the key and lock are or what they look like. Also, the inside of the box looks like a miniature city with a few miniature nukes dropped in for good measure. If the DRM was open source, it would be like if the box had neon lines leading to where the key and lock are.
(Score: 1) by dilbert on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:26PM
It sounds like you are saying that open source DRM would be ineffective (at least for the tech savvy). If this is the case, why would a corporation who thinks DRM is a good idea opt for an ineffective DRM?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by githaron on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:09PM
I think they are only considering standardizing an external API so that you don't need a browser plugin per DRM platform. The propriety DRM engine of choice would probably be downloaded on the fly based an HTML tag and its properties. In essense, you would be moving from a browser plugin to a HTML plugin. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:29PM
It sounds to me like cruchy doesn't have a clue about how computers work. As to "effective DRM", well, I think unicorns and leprechans have bags full. There is no such thing.
One minute... how long do I have to wait, guys? It still says it's been a minute and I have to wait.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0, Troll) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:44PM
sounds to me like you're deaf
it also doesn't take a computer genius to figure out that open standards are better than proprietary ones
(Score: 2, Interesting) by paddym on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:22PM
Not to rant to anyone personally, but here's my rant to anyone who cares:
"The W3C mission is to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web."
DRM is short-term. It is short-term content. I don't care how many standard wrappers are put around DRM, either the mechanism becomes hacked, or the content becomes unusable. It will probably take the death of people (i.e. these medical records were saved with DRM, and now we can't read them) before we abolish it all together, but it is inevitable. If the W3C pushes through these standards at the behest of the industry, I can unequivocally say that we will one day look back at the standards and wonder why we had to add so much complexity for such a short-term occurrence in the history of the world.
In the past, entertainment was commissioned. Now we can commission work again. Sure the taxes are difficult to handle right now, but this barrier will be lowered. We can pay quality folks to make quality entertainment in full before they even start working. This is more efficient and it requires no DRM. Any subsequent profit is icing and can be shared by the most efficient distributors.
If it becomes standard to lock up content, then it will become the default output mechanism for many applications. This will require additional software or libraries or plugins on the client computer. The source code can not be built into Firefox. This is no different than what NVIDIA does with Linux kernel drivers or Adobe does with flash today. But whereas old versions of drivers tend to be usable in some contexts, obsolete DRM is NOT! Even though DRM should require little effort to upgrade in theory, the reality is that vendors have no record of being up-to-date, careful, or conscientious especially when it comes to supporting multiple operating systems. They are fickle at best.
The W3C is subsidizing an obsolete industry at best. At worst, it is enabling a whole-sale Balkanized internet of unsharable content. I fail to see how that is compatible with "long-term growth of the Web".
(Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:03PM
i hate drm as much as anyone (i don't buy anything with drm)
but the reason why flash is so prevalent is because of the lack of any w3c standard
want to kill flash? support the w3c
drm sucks, but if you think it's going away you're living in a dreamland
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:27PM
I'll take neither, thank you. I have neither Silferfish or Flush installed on my machines and I'm not likely to. I'd subscribe to NetFlix were it not for DRM and Silverfish, but fuck 'em, I'll just use TPB until they get their shit together.
Stop trying to push that garbage.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by crutchy on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:06PM
i'm not pushing anything. i wish drm would die a painful death. unfortunately in reality it won't.
you may be able to get away without drm at the moment... but eventually it will infiltrate a lot more copyright content.
i'd prefer a web future directed by the w3c rather than companies like microsoft, and i'm sure many others would too (especially those that remember ie6)
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:56PM
The more content is infested with DRM the less I'll buy and the more I'll pirate. If the cartels would stop abusing their paying customers piracy would decrease.
Don't roll over!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org