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: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:31PM (#338946) Journal

    I think your hospital example is just "encryption". I'll try to give a better example of the difference between "encryption" and "DRM". I don't remember if I read this or made it up myself, and I don't remember anyone saying that I got it wrong:

    Preamble: the house
    You have paid for a house. You consider yourself the owner of your house. All the legal paperworks says that you are the owner of the house, to do with what you like.

    Encryption, foundation layer.
    Your house has doors. The doors have locks. The doors can only be opened with a set of keys. The only normal way to use the house is to use those keys to unlock the doors, so you or anyone else can enter and leave through the doors. (This example doesn't concern breaking a toilet window and crawling through it).

    Now comes the difference between encryption and DRM:

    Encryption.
    You own the keys to the doors in your house. You have the keys. You can pay a locksmith to make copies of the keys. Noone but you and people you gave (copies of) the keys to (e.g. neighbours or visitors who stay over) can enter your house normally.

    DRM.
    A second party ("concierge"? [wikipedia.org]) owns the keys to the doors in your house. They have the keys. You do not. You can enter and leave "your" house normally, as can your guests, as long as:
    (1) this concierge is willing to unlock the doors for you
    (2) this concierge is able to unlock the doors for you, e.g. not bankrupt or stopped existing (Microsoft PlaysForSure [wikipedia.org]).

    Please, tell me if this analogy is wrong.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @02:45PM (#338955) Journal

    Oh and another thing for my house DRM example:

    For the system to be profitable to the concierge, it is essential that your house trusts the concierge more than you.

    That is the meaning of the word "trust" in Trusted Computing. Trust the one who holds the keys, not the so-called "owner".

    I think this may be on-topic if you ever want to buy a new general purpose computer:

    Why is the latest Intel hardware unsupported in libreboot? [libreboot.org]

    Why is the latest AMD hardware unsupported in libreboot? [libreboot.org]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 29 2016, @10:46PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday April 29 2016, @10:46PM (#339226) Journal

      Just FYI your second link contains FUD, the AMD PSP security module is ONLY in their embedded chips, specifically the ones based on the Jaguar/Puma architecture, so unless you buy a tablet running AMD or one of the 4 socketed Puma chips this module is NOT included. All of the X86 chips including the latest AMD FX do not have this module and neither do their latest mainstream APUs, which is why they are not used in corporate laptops that require hardware DRM. There was talk of adding it later but it was never added and no Zen layouts that have been leaked so far include the ARM PSP module so it looks to be a dead issue except for those 4 chips. Source... provided. [tomshardware.com]

      BTW this is the newest source I can find, everything on the AMD website regarding the PSP module hasn't been updated since 2013 so I think we can safely say that as of this date in 2016 its a non issue for over 95% of the chips AMD makes. Oh and if anyone wonders why they would put the PSP module in a chip that is really only used to make cheap HTPCs? The Jaguar/Puma core is the same one used in the PS4 and XB1 so its for the consoles and AMD is just selling off the APUs that didn't hit the clocks/cores required for use in the console line.

      That said they run OpenELEC Linux just fine so they make great Kodi HTPCs and I have yet to see any software in the wild that can actually use the ARM PSP module (unlike the Intel TPM) so it appears to just be a bit of dead silicon left over from the console sale.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday April 29 2016, @10:56PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Friday April 29 2016, @10:56PM (#339229) Journal

        Thanks hairyfeet, I'll remember that when I have budget to buy a new computer.

        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:47AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday April 30 2016, @12:47AM (#339273) Journal

          You're welcome. I am AMD exclusive at the shop and put my money where my mouth is, my personal PC is all AMD (FX-8320E, R9 280) and its a great system, plays games like a boss while giving me the cores I need for music editing and video transcoding. You can look up the die layouts for both the FX and the AMD mainstream APUs and there isn't any ARM PSP module so if not having DRM baked in matters to you? There is really only AMD left, maybe a couple of the low end Pentiums and Celerons.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 29 2016, @03:53PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 29 2016, @03:53PM (#338997) Journal

    A second party ("concierge"?)

    Prison guard.

    Maybe we schould call DRMed content "imprisoned content".

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.