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