SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Friday April 29 2016, @11:48AM
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".