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 EvilSS on Friday April 29 2016, @03:32PM
So we are replacing shitty proprietary plugins like Flash and Silverlight with.... more shitty proprietary plugins. yay standards!
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday April 29 2016, @06:26PM
Yeah, I don't think this really matters. It's not universally usable, so it's just a plugin with W3C support. W3C has never really dictated what runs on the web, browser makers were implementing purposefully different behavior to conform to old bugs all along. W3C only changed their docs to mostly match reality after WHATWG was formed. This will be (slash-has-been) implemented, but it won't matter. It's still sort of annoying that they're even trying.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 29 2016, @10:25PM
Hey give Flash the credit it deserves! Did you see Adobe attack Gnash with a DMCA? Nope. Did you see Adobe stop any program from making or using a Flash decoder that wasn't made by them? Nope, in fact most FOSS players like VLC and MPC-HC could play Flash no problem without ever touching anything by Adobe. Adobe also had no problem with you bundling either their player or any other in any distro you liked, no cease and desist or army of corporate lawyers attacking.
This is why I TRIED to warn everybody that HTML V5 was a trojan horse, it was being made with too many nasty actors like Apple and MSFT getting their two cents involved, and that we needed to hang onto Flash until we could come up with something truly better, that used less resources, supported everything Flash did, and ran on even more systems with even less restrictions. Instead what we are gonna get is "iDRM" that will be tied to the latest hardware (thus pleasing Apple and MSFT) with a significant barrier to entry (thus pleasing Google who will just tie it to their proprietary playstore) and will leave everyone else with nothing but a bunch of big black "you cannot view this content" boxes where huge chunks of the web used to be.
And the worst part? There is not gonna be a damned thing you can do about it now, the fight is over. Flash is dead and just like "works best in IE" was forced to become a "standard" because MSFT was tying everything together nowadays all the content producers look at Apple's profits and just drool so as long as it'll run on iCrap? It'll become the "standard".
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.