Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday April 29 2016, @10:03AM   Printer-friendly
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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5