DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat

W3C's decision to publish a DRM framework will keep the Web relevant and useful.

Read the whole story

 

[Walt French]

SCdF[/url]":1pyjs4id]These extensions, in the sense of engineering, simply make the situation worse. You're replacing a generic runnable with a bunch of closed source OS-level binaries where the impetus on cross compatibility is on the individual rightsholders / media conglomerates. It would be like replacing Javascript with native code: all you get (well apart from a speed boost, but bear with me here) is a compatibility nightmare.

I'm still not clear on what any of the upsides are, ignoring the whole "getting rid of flash" thing.

Let's be clear: Flash ain't on the overwhelming majority of users' devices and it's only going to get worse. It is under the complete (copyright-protected) control of Adobe, who shows no interest in opening it to the public domain, as they long ago did (under duress) with PostScript. Instead, Adobe will try to keep control of Flash long enough to transition to other formats, recognizing that today, Flash is under severe pressure because anybody who cares about mobile also distributes through other formats, also.

It appears that this proposal requires a (relatively) straightforward API for a generic DRM module, which the content distributors would be obligated to produce. They could focus it on as many platforms as they saw fit. Very likely, a very small number of modules would result on users' devices, not that it would matter terribly, because the beleaguered browser people would only be worrying about the API to these—the users and/or platform vendors would manage the modules.

So I don't get the concern with complexity. The people who want DRM will deal with it; the browser people who only want to keep their window open in front of users should have an easy time.

 

[jimisawesome]

Great_Scott[/url]":vrzudd4l]

Delenda Est Carthago[/url]":vrzudd4l]The web doesn't need Hollywood's blessing to be relevant. Netflix, Google & Co need the web far more than it needs them.

This article is well written, but the simple fact if the matter is that the most important thing in the world is communication. The Internet is only relevant because it's the best and most flexible way to communicate.

Content is not king, has never been king, and will never be king. Just ask Facebook or Google, they'll tell you, if they're honest.

?huh? Google is only around because of content what else are search results? Even Facebook is all about content user produced content but content non the less.

 

[DrPizza]

Walt French[/url]":3coj1ls9]Let's be clear: Flash ain't on the overwhelming majority of users' devices

Yes it is.

 

[CobraA2]

Let's be clear: Flash ain't on the overwhelming majority of users' devices

Don't confuse sales with installed base.

 

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

"DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat"

R-i-ght. And "This store has closed-circuit video monitoring for your protection."

 

[Kasoroth]

Lonyo[/url]":2rcxmu7d]
The only way to get content "creators" onto "the web" is to play ball with them.
You may (for some reason) believe they aren't necessary, but, well, they are. Yes, this may only be replacing Flash/Silverlight etc with another set of plugins, but that's just the way it has to be right now. You can't just get rid of the DRM enabling plugins and expect people to go "oh, we can't put DRM on our web content? That's OK, we will go DRM free".
It's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So you have to do what's best for "the web" and keep these people happy. No one forced everyone else to use the DRM. Without the DRM, the content simply goes away, pretty much guaranteed.
Either you have DRM and content, or no DRM and no content, with regards to the "big media". Everyone else can do what they want to do anyway, so it doesn't really impact them, as it doesn't force you to use DRM.

It seems to me that this isn't really changing the situation very much, since it seems like the EME modules can be any arbitrary, OS specific, binary black box. I understand that the content providers want DRM, but I think that the W3C should impose certain limits on how it can be implemented, in order to ensure universality and security. I don't really know much about the API, so maybe some of this is already accounted for, but here's a compromise that I think would be reasonable:

1) EME modules should run in some kind of bytecode-based runtime environment with a standardized spec. This way the browser developers could implement this runtime on any platform they want to support, and the EME modules will not be OS or CPU architecture specific.

2) EME modules should have well defined and very limited APIs, with no ability to talk to the host OS, just the browser, and no ability to call code outside of the runtime.

The goal here is that it should absolutely not be left up to the EME provider to decide which browsers or operating systems, or CPU architectures are supported. An EME module should simply work on any browser or media player that implements the EME API, even if it's in a browser that didn't exist when the EME was written, running on an OS that didn't exist when it was written, on a CPU architecture that didn't exist when it was written. Any system that doesn't meet this standard is basically equivalent to the current "plug-in or proprietary app" system, and is mostly a waste of time reimplementing what we already have.

 

[Black Frost]

Got a couple things to say on this one...

1) The premise that some content creators - Hollywood and the like - won't play ball with the web unless DRM is there is 100% right. They'll either have control over their products or they won't release their product at all. This is tried and a constant across all industries.

2) Some won't use DRM even when the option's available. They didn't/wouldn't have before and they still won't. This industry can co-exist and in every instance where both are available, does and is a success.

3) Those who don't fit under #2 and want the content locked get forced with a choice: DRM or No DRM? While I understand that people want to point to movies, music, etc first because of who we're talking about, I feel it's best to talk about the elephant in the room here: video games. No industry has tried DRM more than them. No industry has such a varied list of methods. And no industry has found the real answer to DRM except for them. If you want to keep the answer as one which involves the web, movies, etc then I'll point to a different example: Anime. It also came to the same conclusion. Both are industries that have been plagued with rampant piracy, but both understand that it will always be there and the best way to minimize it is to offer better, affordable services while keeping the same content. That's the "secret," and once you hit that point then DRM actually can become a positive.

Want an example of something that's generally bad DRM but in specific instances can be good? Always online.
Always online anything is going to be worked around. Obviously I'm talking about games that can function offline at the same level - stuff that requires online play to really be enjoyed (e.g., MMO, competitive games) is its own little world. Games that are really single player? That's worked around. Ask SimCity - within a week people already figured out how to play offline. Assassin's Creed PC anything gets laughed out the room because it's cracked and then playable. Streaming video gets downloaded with an extension. Know what'll happen with HTML5 DRM? There will be an extension made to get rid of it and download DRM-Free. Fact is that from a consumer point of view, this doesn't work. It's especially bad with games simply because of the size and time a game is, videos can get a pass with it - see youtube.

So how then is it ever good? Specifically in the realm of video this can be good because content providers are willing to go with it. Here's where I get into anime a bit: Crunchyroll. First thing to understand is that piracy and anime go hand in hand. Some of it couldn't be helped before really; anime comes out in Japan first then months later, sometimes years, it comes out to the US through the legal channels. This, when faced with the competition of people online willing to just do high quality fansubs in a day or two, is a joke. Thus, a lot of piracy goes on within anime and for some people the TV version is enough. Crunchyroll showed up and started going around it with a paid subscription service where a group of once-fansubbers would become the official translators of anime out in Japan (official as in, they get to work with the scripts and are approved from the studios). There was no real DRM there as you could download and own the episodes... at first. They dropped that service and coincidentally grew much bigger, much faster in the process. I don't think there's any clear statements over what happened but it's pretty obvious to most that by dropping "download to own" more studios became interested in them. Now you're looking at a good 80%+ of anime being shown in Japan then subbed for English speakers within days and they're still trying to cut the time down. You can still get most any show from bunches of fansubbing groups that are unrelated, but speed and quality are both similar. Despite that fact, many choose to pay for crunchyroll because it's official and they want to support the industry. It's a wild success to the point where the model's being copied by anime distributors for their catalog, Funimation being the biggest. Is piracy fixed? Of course not, it's as big as ever. At the same time, did DRM help this industry? Yes, and it will continue to because it's a new way to get profits. If you want the best quality you're still going to have to buy the DVDs/BDs, that won't change. If you just want to see the shows and not pay a dime, you'll still download ripped copies of crunchyroll's subs or somebody else's - that won't change. But if you want to support the olive branch by the content providers for the TV product, you'll buy a subscription.

And it's been successful. A good example of DRM. This would be an ideal situation for movies/TV shows with the web and HTML5. This is pretty much what Google is trying to do with youtube subscriptions too. As you'd expect, they're also going to be real easy to work around and while it "won't work" for many people that just want the content as-is (e.g., before enhancements to DVDs/BDs), it'll "work" for content providers because now they're making money off a large group of people willing to give it to them. People got what they wanted, content providers got what they wanted, it's win/win and it wouldn't have been doable to the point it is now without DRM.


The big elephant in the room when it comes to DRM though is video games.Whether it's always online DRM or certain DRM that is installed into your system (TAGES, SecuROM), if you want to talk about DRM you look to video games first because it simply has the most experience. Content providers have tried to use and and many have failed - the biggest probably being Ubisoft's UPlay where they were forced to do a 180 on their positions and were desperate enough to sell stuff for a buck not too long ago. Or you can look at Origin, which is extremely hated online but is prone to glitching on prices - so much so that at one point almost the entire catalog available was free. Though they could have simply taken everything back, they just shrugged and let it be. Why? They needed people. EA's forcing Origin down everyone's throat and while some just shrug and go with it, there's a sizable number of people that aren't okay with it and it's definitely hurting them. Yet while all this is going on Steam has been so successful that it's almost like a platform of its own to some - something that was gained ONLY because of its DRM. Without Steamworks many wouldn't have tried. Sure you have EA that went on to make their own stuff but they're the exception here; Steam offers some services to the consumers that are useful (e.g., auto-updating, a central hub of your games, frequent sales) while also offering publishers a way to have control over their game (the DRM). Piracy is rampant among PC gamers but so is Steam, often within the same group for that matter. The fact is that many people are willing to accept Steam because it A) does not hurt the content it's running, B) does not interfere with the system running it, and C) is an official means to support the content provider at reasonable prices. In certain instances where you do have a DRM violate any one of those you end up seeing some pretty negative reactions (e.g., always online hurts A, SecuROM actually toned down what it did because of B, and TAGES is avoided by many for that same reason). Thanks to Steam offering great services, providing content at great prices, and almost sandboxing itself from the rest of your system, it has a DRM that's not just accepted, but seen positive to many. Which only helps content providers because now they have an audience that wants their product. That said there is one big lesson here which I fear will be true for HTML5: There are multiple DRM standards within gaming. While video is reduced to one - streaming - gaming has Steam, Rockstar Social, GFWL, Origin, SecuROM, TAGES, UPlay, and different variations of "always online." I would sooner bet that it's this system that will be mimicked over the former.


tl;dr: Ultimately, service is king. Content is second to that, and DRM varies from most important to least depending on implementation. Good DRM can exist and there's many pieces of truth in the article. It will, however, be a while for it to become a positive. There's also nothing that can really change the fact that before DRM there is rampant piracy, and after DRM there will be rampant piracy. Nothing will change to those who prefer that and they are already assumed a lost cause unless and until you combat it with the only way that is proven to work: offer better services at a reasonable price with the same content that you would get otherwise.

 

[Zapitron]

It would provide a testing ground for a company like Netflix to prove that DRM is unnecessary, and that by removing DRM, content owners have greater market access and hence greater potential income. Granted, it might also come with the risk of prolific piracy and unauthorized redistribution, so might serve only to justify the continued use of DRM.

What does removing DRM have to do with piracy? Piracy and unauthorized redistribution is already prolific, probably because that's the only option people have for getting the un-DRMed files (not for sale at any price) that are compatible with their equipment or software.

Risk of prolific piracy? That's like a shop keeper, many of whose former customers are going to a competing shop, thinking there's a risk that if he stays open for more hours, people may continue going to the competitor. It's true! But only because that's the problem he already has and no one knows for sure that being open for business will solve his problem. But being open for business, sure as hell isn't going to turn more customers away.

While it's true that dropping DRM might not get people to try Netflix, it's not going to make Netflix customer say "This lack of DRM is driving me crazy with all its problems! I've had it and am canceling my subscription." DRMless content doesn't work like that, as we learned over hundreds of years of it being proved a relatively foolproof way to do things. Customers complain or defect when things don't work, not when they do.

Isn't this common sense? Isn't it born out by every experience people have working with media files? What problems have you had, Mr. Bright, with DRM-free files that made you give up and switch to piracy? Did the DRMed files really lack the problem? I think you've got a really weird way of looking at things.

 

[Zapitron]

charleski[/url]":ev4eexbj]

Brass2TheMax[/url]":ev4eexbj]I want to see a poll gauging the intelligence of Ars readers. I suggest the following items:

1. You think DRM can never be used for good.
2. You think DRM isn't inherently good or bad, but is merely a protection tool available to content creators to reasonably protect their work from being distributed without being payed for it.
3. You think DRM can never be used for bad.

It's less principled, but if we're being honest, I'd go for:
4. You think DRM is assinine, but may be tolerated as long as it can be defeated by anyone with reasonable technical competency. Let the content-owners believe they're 'protected' if that stops them crying.

There's really something to that. You just described DVDs. I bought a ton of DVDs and illegally played them. They made a lot of money and all I had to do was make sure they didn't know what software I was using, and the people who wrote the DVD playing software just had to make sure to stay out of US. It was a horrible situation and there were some innocent victims harmed, but overall it worked and most of the consumers and Hollywood came out ahead, at a few unlucky (e.g. 2600) people's expense.

I don't know why we'd go with #4, though, when #1 is there. What I tolerate when I'm in an unempathetic mood, I might not tolerate when I'm feeling more human.

Why didn't they just keep using CSS for BluRay? What was wrong with a most-people-win mutually profitable scenario? Could they really just not stomach the idea of happy customers? They just had to be rid of us? Psycopaths.

 

[wmark]

EME is a plug-in extension mechanism. The article mistakenly implies that DRM is moving away from plugins while in fact Encrypted Media *Extensions* are plug-ins themselves.

W3C has just added *more* plug-ins to the platform. A Netflix plugin. Hulu plugin. iTunes plugin. Google Play plugin.

Also don't forget that the spec is not a complete DRM solution. It's only a page-to-browser interface, but it's missing spec for browser-to-plugin and plugin-to-licensing server interfaces. Those other parts will remain proprietary.

 

[Ilikebundy99]

Black Frost[/url]":uwssnzcl]Got a couple things to say on this one...

1) The premise that some content creators - Hollywood and the like - won't play ball with the web unless DRM is there is 100% right. They'll either have control over their products or they won't release their product at all. This is tried and a constant across all industries.

2) Some won't use DRM even when the option's available. They didn't/wouldn't have before and they still won't. This industry can co-exist and in every instance where both are available, does and is a success.

3) Those who don't fit under #2 and want the content locked get forced with a choice: DRM or No DRM? While I understand that people want to point to movies, music, etc first because of who we're talking about, I feel it's best to talk about the elephant in the room here: video games. No industry has tried DRM more than them. No industry has such a varied list of methods. And no industry has found the real answer to DRM except for them. If you want to keep the answer as one which involves the web, movies, etc then I'll point to a different example: Anime. It also came to the same conclusion. Both are industries that have been plagued with rampant piracy, but both understand that it will always be there and the best way to minimize it is to offer better, affordable services while keeping the same content. That's the "secret," and once you hit that point then DRM actually can become a positive.

Want an example of something that's generally bad DRM but in specific instances can be good? Always online.
Always online anything is going to be worked around. Obviously I'm talking about games that can function offline at the same level - stuff that requires online play to really be enjoyed (e.g., MMO, competitive games) is its own little world. Games that are really single player? That's worked around. Ask SimCity - within a week people already figured out how to play offline. Assassin's Creed PC anything gets laughed out the room because it's cracked and then playable. Streaming video gets downloaded with an extension. Know what'll happen with HTML5 DRM? There will be an extension made to get rid of it and download DRM-Free. Fact is that from a consumer point of view, this doesn't work. It's especially bad with games simply because of the size and time a game is, videos can get a pass with it - see youtube.

So how then is it ever good? Specifically in the realm of video this can be good because content providers are willing to go with it. Here's where I get into anime a bit: Crunchyroll. First thing to understand is that piracy and anime go hand in hand. Some of it couldn't be helped before really; anime comes out in Japan first then months later, sometimes years, it comes out to the US through the legal channels. This, when faced with the competition of people online willing to just do high quality fansubs in a day or two, is a joke. Thus, a lot of piracy goes on within anime and for some people the TV version is enough. Crunchyroll showed up and started going around it with a paid subscription service where a group of once-fansubbers would become the official translators of anime out in Japan (official as in, they get to work with the scripts and are approved from the studios). There was no real DRM there as you could download and own the episodes... at first. They dropped that service and coincidentally grew much bigger, much faster in the process. I don't think there's any clear statements over what happened but it's pretty obvious to most that by dropping "download to own" more studios became interested in them. Now you're looking at a good 80%+ of anime being shown in Japan then subbed for English speakers within days and they're still trying to cut the time down. You can still get most any show from bunches of fansubbing groups that are unrelated, but speed and quality are both similar. Despite that fact, many choose to pay for crunchyroll because it's official and they want to support the industry. It's a wild success to the point where the model's being copied by anime distributors for their catalog, Funimation being the biggest. Is piracy fixed? Of course not, it's as big as ever. At the same time, did DRM help this industry? Yes, and it will continue to because it's a new way to get profits. If you want the best quality you're still going to have to buy the DVDs/BDs, that won't change. If you just want to see the shows and not pay a dime, you'll still download ripped copies of crunchyroll's subs or somebody else's - that won't change. But if you want to support the olive branch by the content providers for the TV product, you'll buy a subscription.

And it's been successful. A good example of DRM. This would be an ideal situation for movies/TV shows with the web and HTML5. This is pretty much what Google is trying to do with youtube subscriptions too. As you'd expect, they're also going to be real easy to work around and while it "won't work" for many people that just want the content as-is (e.g., before enhancements to DVDs/BDs), it'll "work" for content providers because now they're making money off a large group of people willing to give it to them. People got what they wanted, content providers got what they wanted, it's win/win and it wouldn't have been doable to the point it is now without DRM.


The big elephant in the room when it comes to DRM though is video games.Whether it's always online DRM or certain DRM that is installed into your system (TAGES, SecuROM), if you want to talk about DRM you look to video games first because it simply has the most experience. Content providers have tried to use and and many have failed - the biggest probably being Ubisoft's UPlay where they were forced to do a 180 on their positions and were desperate enough to sell stuff for a buck not too long ago. Or you can look at Origin, which is extremely hated online but is prone to glitching on prices - so much so that at one point almost the entire catalog available was free. Though they could have simply taken everything back, they just shrugged and let it be. Why? They needed people. EA's forcing Origin down everyone's throat and while some just shrug and go with it, there's a sizable number of people that aren't okay with it and it's definitely hurting them. Yet while all this is going on Steam has been so successful that it's almost like a platform of its own to some - something that was gained ONLY because of its DRM. Without Steamworks many wouldn't have tried. Sure you have EA that went on to make their own stuff but they're the exception here; Steam offers some services to the consumers that are useful (e.g., auto-updating, a central hub of your games, frequent sales) while also offering publishers a way to have control over their game (the DRM). Piracy is rampant among PC gamers but so is Steam, often within the same group for that matter. The fact is that many people are willing to accept Steam because it A) does not hurt the content it's running, B) does not interfere with the system running it, and C) is an official means to support the content provider at reasonable prices. In certain instances where you do have a DRM violate any one of those you end up seeing some pretty negative reactions (e.g., always online hurts A, SecuROM actually toned down what it did because of B, and TAGES is avoided by many for that same reason). Thanks to Steam offering great services, providing content at great prices, and almost sandboxing itself from the rest of your system, it has a DRM that's not just accepted, but seen positive to many. Which only helps content providers because now they have an audience that wants their product. That said there is one big lesson here which I fear will be true for HTML5: There are multiple DRM standards within gaming. While video is reduced to one - streaming - gaming has Steam, Rockstar Social, GFWL, Origin, SecuROM, TAGES, UPlay, and different variations of "always online." I would sooner bet that it's this system that will be mimicked over the former.


tl;dr: Ultimately, service is king. Content is second to that, and DRM varies from most important to least depending on implementation. Good DRM can exist and there's many pieces of truth in the article. It will, however, be a while for it to become a positive. There's also nothing that can really change the fact that before DRM there is rampant piracy, and after DRM there will be rampant piracy. Nothing will change to those who prefer that and they are already assumed a lost cause unless and until you combat it with the only way that is proven to work: offer better services at a reasonable price with the same content that you would get otherwise.

Your right, Service is king. but your wrong that drm is having any sort of positive impact here. It is not drm that encourages people to use those services and drm is not required to enable them. people use those services because of the benefits they do see and because they generally are not made aware of/affected by the drm. when they are made aware of the drm it is ussually because it has failed and then it provides a negative user experience which is more likely to drive them to obtaining thier content illegaly.

DRM never provides a possitive experience, or enables one that couldn't be provided otherwise
good services provide a possitive experience, and some of them happen to carry drm that hasn't been too intrusive to thier customer base so far.

File sharing often serves a market that content owners won't as well.. I subscribed to crunchyroll for quite sometime, i quit because many of the shows i wanted to watch were region restricted and not accesible in my area. i could not find a legal solution that allowed me to stream those shows in my area. Clearly they could if they wanted to, since those shows are hosted by crunchyroll for people in other regions.

Anyway thats my 2 cents.

 

[LightHunterG]

How about this: I will disable EME modules in my browser(s) and continue to refuse to consume any content with DRM. I've found I don't really need any of it, personally. There are quite a few alternatives and they are getting better all the time.

 

[PNWcontrib]

EME is simply an iteration of the web.

As I see it, there needs to be a framework.
The W3C formed one.
How it's implemented is up to each business or creator.

It's no different than the current DRM schemes where some use them and some don't.
This simply creates a framework within HTML for its use, which some will use and some won't.

The only real differences are there's now a framework and we are seeing the demise of Flash and Silverlight. That seems a positive.

The philosophy of free and open works from user to user just fine today and still will tomorrow.

Those that want to see and hear free media will still have their arguments to make to the media industry, to the distributors and providers - having EME doesn't change issues and concerns with over zealous copyright - but those aren't technical issues, those are business models and those need deep packet inspection!

 

[Great_Scott]

jimisawesome[/url]":3kqwougz]

?huh? Google is only around because of content what else are search results? Even Facebook is all about content user produced content but content non the less.

Sending an IM? Checking my friends social media page? Finding reviews for the local pizza place? Driving directions to a new place? Finding obscure chat commands for your favorite MMO? Looking up the text of a recent political speech? Visiting your local new station website?

Not MPAA. Not RIAA. Not paid for with money. Not distributor content.

Skype and Trillian are what the Internet is really about.

 

[Vapur9]

Zapitron[/url]":2r4umjfp]

It would provide a testing ground for a company like Netflix to prove that DRM is unnecessary, and that by removing DRM, content owners have greater market access and hence greater potential income. Granted, it might also come with the risk of prolific piracy and unauthorized redistribution, so might serve only to justify the continued use of DRM.

What does removing DRM have to do with piracy? Piracy and unauthorized redistribution is already prolific, probably because that's the only option people have for getting the un-DRMed files (not for sale at any price) that are compatible with their equipment or software.

Risk of prolific piracy? That's like a shop keeper, many of whose former customers are going to a competing shop, thinking there's a risk that if he stays open for more hours, people may continue going to the competitor. It's true! But only because that's the problem he already has and no one knows for sure that being open for business will solve his problem. But being open for business, sure as hell isn't going to turn more customers away.

While it's true that dropping DRM might not get people to try Netflix, it's not going to make Netflix customer say "This lack of DRM is driving me crazy with all its problems! I've had it and am canceling my subscription." DRMless content doesn't work like that, as we learned over hundreds of years of it being proved a relatively foolproof way to do things. Customers complain or defect when things don't work, not when they do.

Isn't this common sense? Isn't it born out by every experience people have working with media files? What problems have you had, Mr. Bright, with DRM-free files that made you give up and switch to piracy? Did the DRMed files really lack the problem? I think you've got a really weird way of looking at things.

DRM doesn't prevent piracy; it is meant to control consumption by customers willing to pay.

 

[perholmes]

Does nobody understand the difference between a rental and a purchase? DRM is indeed evil for a purchase, because it denies rights you actually have under the law.

But at the same, DRM for a rental is INCREDIBLY REASONABLE. When you rent something for two days, or stream it from a subscription service, the whole point is that you get it cheaply because you don't keep it.

I know that moochers insist on their right to get purchases at a rental price, which is what you're demanding for Netflix or movie rentals to be DRM-free. But it's really not reasonable. You're getting it at such a low price because you're NOT keeping it. If Netflix was to go DRM-free, i.e. you get to keep all the videos, it would have to cost $100/month. Don't be an idiot.

Per

 

[sPOiDar]

lordcheeto[/url]":3io3xtpk]

timw4mail[/url]":3io3xtpk]I'll take Flash any day over having to have a different EME extension (plugin) for each site. Isn't this going backwards?

*sigh*

That's not what's happening here.

EME does not specify any DRM scheme per se. Rather, it defines a set of APIs that allow JavaScript and HTML to interact with decryption/protection modules. These modules will tend to be platform-specific in one way or another, and will contain the core DRM technology.

These APIs will be just like every other Standard JavaScript API.

If I use JavaScript to run var num = Math.sqrt(16);, that has to be implemented by the browser in some platform-specific manner.

One API. Implemented as necessary by browsers to work with the underlying OS. To wit, Mozilla may choose to release their underlying DRM scheme as open source.

*sigh*

That's not what's happening here. The spec provides common hooks for arbitrary, proprietary binaries that provide the actual DRM implementation. Go read the actual proposal - Peter Bright is exactly right. And that's why it's such a terrible idea.

 

[Midnitte]

WiseWeasel[/url]":2rjmobbu]Irrelevant. iDevices won't ever support this EME scheme, and it'll never work on Linux, so it's not any different from relying on Silverlight or Flash. Binary blobs do not belong in web standards.

Why? Mobile safari already supports plenty of CSS3 and HTML5 standards.

 

[manybuddhas]

All the new code in the world doesn't change the fact:
DRM comes and DRM goes, but once digital means free forever.

 

[malor]

That's not hurting the open Web—it's working to ensure its continued usefulness and relevance.

[trollhide]You are full of shit, Peter Bright.[/trollhide]

 

[pkirvan]

malor[/url]":djbw6rbl]

That's not hurting the open Web—it's working to ensure its continued usefulness and relevance.

You are full of shit, Peter Bright.

And you are as classy as you are articulate. Better hope there aren't 20 people left to read this thread.

 

[achbed]

Congratulations to the W3C for bringing about a new set of totally incompatible standards-compliant plugins that will fragment the web. Each content provider will use this to create their own incompatible encryption stream, and release the decoders for only their chosen platforms.

One only needs to see the state of streaming video sites to see what's happening - Sony is pushing all their content to the Playstation platform and their own online store, Disney has doubled-down with Netflix, Warner Brothers has their own movie archive site now, Viacom is busy trying to get the best deal from everyone and their mother, and HBO is staying out of the market entirely. The cable companies are either ducking and trying to move their profit centers into the ISP/Phone portions of their markets, or are actively purchasing content companies in order to maintain control of the revenue streams.

With the state of the market, I would seriously doubt any of the major media outlets will endorse a single standard encryption model where they don't have firm control of what devices play their content. Best case, the W3C just fragmented the market like the plugin battles of old. At worst they just opened a hole that makes all future standards irrelevant.

 

[BoogerGooberBoober]

When will we learn and accept that DRM has *NOTHING* to do with piracy?

It is a ruse, a Trojan horse, a plain and simple LIE to propel a business model that no longer has any business being around, and does so AT THE EXPENSE OF FREEDOM.

 

[trinsic]

tyrsius[/url]":38l7vaph]I couldn't agree more. Keeping DRM out of the web spec does not reduce the number of people who need, or will use, DRM. It just forces them elsewhere.

Any other conclusions ignores this reality.

So let them go elsewhere. Its a non-issue. Open standards, Free Software, and license free art will force companies who want to lock down content to either change there ways or die a slow death. Its already moving in that direction. Most of the stuff I use today is license free. Its really a no-brainer. Artists, Developers, Publishers are waking up to the fact that they dont need restrictive models anymore. Its time to wake up and realize that the DRM world is done, get over it and move on.

 

[steelgrass]

What a complete waste of an article. The whole point of the web is write once run everywhere. If it is only way you can publish content that will display on Windows NT, Windows CE, Linux, BSD, QNX, Desktops, Phones, Tablets, TV's. That is what makes it useful.

So if EME means we get DRM that works everywhere on everything like HTML does now, then great - the W3 is enhancing the platform. But if EME means we get binary plugins that only run in specific platforms then it is, at best, a complete waste of time, as it is no better than what we have now. Right now we only have a few solutions that only work on specific platforms, like Flash, Silverlight and Java. At worst if it encourages a proliferation of incompatible EME backends because they are so much easier to build than an ecosystem like Flash, then it will be disaster.

So Peter, what basis is this "DRM is good for HTML5, ergo the current EME proposal is good for HTML5" pronouncement? I am buggered if I can see one in the article. In fact, it looks to me like you haven't thought about whether EME is the right way to bring DRM to HTML5 or not.

 

[Doomguy]

This shouldn't have been standardized. At all. Those still wanting to use DRM can pour resources to roll their own DRM and offer a fractured experience to their customers. The "it's inevitable" argument assumes friction is either absent or infinite - actual friction to creation, adoption and maturity is somewhere in between. Standardizing only means more DRM ... And as a paying customer to Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Pandora, Spotify and Amazon Prime videos, I've had my fair share of DRM snafus. BTW, now that I listed my subscriptions, it's evident to me that I should cancel some of them...

 

[trinsic]

Lonyo[/url]":37y6ukxw]It's not really playing devil's advocate, it's speaking the truth.
Whether people like it or not, the licensing of "big" media products like film or TV requires DRM because the copyright holders demand it.

If you remove DRM from "the web", then they will just refuse to allow their content to be played on "the web".
You are naive if you don't believe this, considering how backwards the major studios have shown themselves to be historically.

The only way to get content "creators" onto "the web" is to play ball with them.
You may (for some reason) believe they aren't necessary, but, well, they are. Yes, this may only be replacing Flash/Silverlight etc with another set of plugins, but that's just the way it has to be right now. You can't just get rid of the DRM enabling plugins and expect people to go "oh, we can't put DRM on our web content? That's OK, we will go DRM free".
It's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. So you have to do what's best for "the web" and keep these people happy. No one forced everyone else to use the DRM. Without the DRM, the content simply goes away, pretty much guaranteed.
Either you have DRM and content, or no DRM and no content, with regards to the "big media". Everyone else can do what they want to do anyway, so it doesn't really impact them, as it doesn't force you to use DRM.

If they want to get there content online they have to play ball with the web or they can take there ball and go home. it did already happen, countless times with the begining of itunes and it will happen with all other forms of media, its just going to take time. You are wrong on so many levels you want to sacrifice freedom for convince, thats not the way it works in the real world. Eventually open standards are going to reign supreme because people dont want to deal with restrictions on content. its just going to take time for content owners to adjust.

 

[Azethoth666]

There is a lot of FUD in these comments. But there does not have to be. We can just go back and look at the Amiga. Essentially it was a hackers paradise and all apps got cracked and released for it. Then someone released some business software for it. The company escapes me now, but their (#1 or #2 by sales) spreadsheet or office package sold like 200 copies. Worldwide. This was insufficient to cover the cost of porting the software, never mind actually developing it. Not only did they immediately cancel further Amiga development, so did most other business companies. Games still sold, but the platform died instead of becoming the next Apple or PC.

Content is the same. Unless you can pay for continued development there is no business model. Hollywood does not need you to watch their stuff on your computer. You are the one that needs to watch their stuff in theaters, tv, dvd, bars, etc. They make money doing it that way because it is hard to copy and steal the product.

Unless you (the statistical you that is humanity at large) can consume DRM free movies and pay for them instead of steal them then the only way Hollywood will give them to you on your computer is with DRM. Not because you yourself are teh awesome hacker and steals it for free, but because you (the unwashed masses) pay for it when DRM makes it hard to steal.

As a developer I prefer an API for this necessary (because of human behavior) DRM so I can easily use it in my standards based html5 code.

The real discussion here should center on security. Just how bad will this custom code be when installed from ye.random.pron.malware.site. Luckily by then I will be relying on Apple and/or Microsoft to cocoon me in a nice walled garden of vetted schemes. Or perhaps there will be a PGP style open plugin we can similarly trust.

 

[OrangeCream]

BoogerGooberBoober[/url]":2g0yn3wc]When will we learn and accept that DRM has *NOTHING* to do with piracy?

It is a ruse, a Trojan horse, a plain and simple LIE to propel a business model that no longer has any business being around, and does so AT THE EXPENSE OF FREEDOM.

Watching videos online isn't freedom, it's slavery to mindlessness.

 

[xXxSqueakxXx]

Hmm, I'm not realy worried about DRM per say, hosts are already doing that stuff with flash and what have you.
But what happends when overzelous content providers starts to add DRM to Everything?, perhaps so you can't even look at the code of a page if you suspect it's doing something fishy.
And what happends when the DRM scheme of choice doesn't work, when everything is DRM'd.
And of course, as we all know, protections gets cracked, rendering it pointless.

 

[bilditup1]

Azethoth666[/url]":29mnh7ah]
Unless you (the statistical you that is humanity at large) can consume DRM free movies and pay for them instead of steal them, then the only way Hollywood will give them to you on your computer is with DRM. Not because you yourself are teh awesome hacker and steals it for free, but because you (the unwashed masses) pay for it when DRM makes it hard to steal.

So I could see the use for this in the case of content that is only available via something protected by this scheme, which would - I think? - be harder to crack by nature, but by and large, this wouldn't be true of most movies or television shows (the latter by definition). If they are distributable via physical media or recordable via DVR or similar, then the content is already out in the wild - you just need to know where to go for it. I don't see that changing if streams cease being protected by DRM. At the margins, maybe you'll have issues with people signing up for a streaming service, getting what movies they like, and then dumping it. But surely those who go through that effort would know there are easier ways (torrents, file hosting, usenet).
In other words, the common user, as you say, is not teh awesome hacker, so if they've paid for it then it doesn't make sense to assume that, given the preponderance of easier, free alternatives, the proclivities of that person (that paid for it after all), and the lingering difficulties involved in streamripping, that they are likely to steal or that this scheme make any kind of dent in the amount of stealing going on.
Why is this wrong?

 

[Shavano]

Also Department of Justice has determined that Freedom is Slavery.

In unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that Ignorance is Strength.

 

[noshellswill]

Not to worry, big_money media is getting hosed. W or W/O DRM_enabled html.x the WWW generally views financially-constrained content as **damage** and routes around it. Until such routing is illegal. Then ... like TV only proles will patronize it, while **full-wallets** find a different slice of bandwidth.

 

[RojBlake]

With plugins and apps, there's no meaningful transition to a DRM-free world. There's no good way for distributors to test the waters and see if unprotected distribution is viable. With EME, there is. EME will keep content out of apps and on the Web, and it creates a stepping stone to a DRM-free world. That's not hurting the open Web—it's working to ensure its continued usefulness and relevance.

You could hardly have said this better if you were the president of the RIAA. This is practically lifted word for word from the Big Media playbook - DRM, as presented by their spin machine, is an enabling technology that makes it possible for them to deliver to us the media we all so desperately want to consume experience!

What a crock.

Legal, DRM free media already exists. Sure, it didn't exist originally - for years Big Media touted that DRM in iTunes, for example, was necessary in order for them to viably distribute music. Later, Steve Jobs threw his weight around, got them to drop the DRM and, lo and behold, music continues to fly off of iTunes' virtual shelves like it's going out of fashion.

Big media and its distribution partners do not need any "testing ground" where they can play in the non-Flash, non-Silverlight, DRM waters of the internet. They simply want one because they still can't bring themselves to drop DRM for good, despite all the financial harm they did themselves by sticking with it for so long on iTunes and despite the fact that dropping it from that platform has proven wildly successful. That unwillingness is their problem, not ours, and it does us no favors at all to accept the bullshit they're slinging, especially when that bullshit inherently results in the restriction of our Fair Use rights.

 

[trinsic]

Azethoth666[/url]":2zqz2ky4]There is a lot of FUD in these comments. But there does not have to be. We can just go back and look at the Amiga. Essentially it was a hackers paradise and all apps got cracked and released for it. Then someone released some business software for it. The company escapes me now, but their (#1 or #2 by sales) spreadsheet or office package sold like 200 copies. Worldwide. This was insufficient to cover the cost of porting the software, never mind actually developing it. Not only did they immediately cancel further Amiga development, so did most other business companies. Games still sold, but the platform died instead of becoming the next Apple or PC.

Content is the same. Unless you can pay for continued development there is no business model. Hollywood does not need you to watch their stuff on your computer. You are the one that needs to watch their stuff in theaters, tv, dvd, bars, etc. They make money doing it that way because it is hard to copy and steal the product.

Unless you (the statistical you that is humanity at large) can consume DRM free movies and pay for them instead of steal them then the only way Hollywood will give them to you on your computer is with DRM. Not because you yourself are teh awesome hacker and steals it for free, but because you (the unwashed masses) pay for it when DRM makes it hard to steal.

As a developer I prefer an API for this necessary (because of human behavior) DRM so I can easily use it in my standards based html5 code.

The real discussion here should center on security. Just how bad will this custom code be when installed from ye.random.pron.malware.site. Luckily by then I will be relying on Apple and/or Microsoft to cocoon me in a nice walled garden of vetted schemes. Or perhaps there will be a PGP style open plugin we can similarly trust.

Except, that's not what killed the Amiga. I enjoy a good laugh, when I hear people say that piracy is a direct result of a products failure when you cant even quantify what piracy is, how it effects peoples decisions to buy, and how wide spread it is. There are just too many variables to say for sure how priacy effects business. If anything its great at equalizing the playing field. Big business cant afford there large profit margins because they depend on other peoples work to survive. So that leaves the little guys who can adapt to the situation, im more inclined to let it be that way if big business cant compete, let them die.

Sorry we dont need drm content or license content. We are the customers, you need us. IF you want to survive, you have to deal with the cards you have been delt, or you can take your works and stick them in a safe somewhere, and lets see how much good that does you. More and more people are making films though crowd sourcing and the money goes directly to the people that are making those films. We dont need content industries anymore. They are a thing of the past, in fact the dont even know they are a thing of the past by the way they are trying to behave now acting as if we need them when that's already a forgone conclusion. Please get off your high horse.

 

[Rubberman]

This (DRM-enabled web) is just so wrong! If clueless companies want to enable DRM in their web feeds, then let them develop them, and the plugins required to run them. If people want their cruft, then they can install the plugins, but DO NOT make DRM api's part of the network protocols themselves! Keep the web open!

 

[lXilEl]

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but they're fools if they think this will do anything to combat file sharing. Time and time again we see system after system created and torn to shreds by hackers which I suspect will remain the case as as the internet exist.
No I'm not saying it's right, but it's the truth and the faster they realize a lot of the hackers out there are far more skilled than they'll ever be the faster they can put money elsewhere. Like maybe into the actual content?

Why would I buy a video game when I know how to go download it and burn it and mod my system to play it? The answer is simple, but somehow it's too complex for them to understand... Because I enjoy it and maybe, just maybe I would like to see future upgrades and or new releases by makers that create content I truly love.

 

[trinsic]

nibb[/url]":53uvr49s]I don't understand why some people are upset about this. Doesn't your right end where the right of others start?

So if X company doesn't want to release there stuff because open html standards want to remain free from close standards, so let them. Why is this affecting them? they dont need to use the web to release there stuff, they can just stick there head in the sand right?

If HTML 5 does not support any kind of protection technology, then companies like Netflix and others would rely on plugins forever and while new companies will spring up and alternatives will come into being just like what happened with drm free music on itunes. HTML5 needs only to support the same standards that brought it into existence in the first place.

there fixed it for you. You really need to get a new perspective.

 

[omniron]

Rubberman[/url]":5zoy4mvu]This (DRM-enabled web) is just so wrong! If clueless companies want to enable DRM in their web feeds, then let them develop them, and the plugins required to run them. If people want their cruft, then they can install the plugins, but DO NOT make DRM api's part of the network protocols themselves! Keep the web open!

DRM isn't just for companies.

Do you really think the best ecosystem is for yahoo, google, YouTube, apple, Microsoft, etc to all require thir own installer, with their own plugins?

And if I'm a small indie startup serving for pay video content why should my best options be rolling my own encryption ecosystem, or paying for either silverlight or adobe flash to piggyback on their encryption? It doesn't seem very open to have 2 players control almost all the drm for video.

Having a universal open standard breaks the back of the megacorp grasp on content, and makes things easier for the small developer.

Since this standard is part of the HTML spec, mobile devices should be fine, which had always been the big concern.

I can't see a real downside to this. This isn't your grandmas drm.

 

[microlith]

omniron[/url]":kn4x2w7t]Do you really think the best ecosystem is for yahoo, google, YouTube, apple, Microsoft, etc to all require thir own installer, with their own plugins?

Is it the best? No. It's probably what we'll get though.

And if I'm a small indie startup serving for pay video content why should my best options be rolling my own encryption ecosystem, or paying for either silverlight or adobe flash to piggyback on their encryption? It doesn't seem very open to have 2 players control almost all the drm for video.

Well, we will probably end up in some similar state with these EME modules.

Having a universal open standard breaks the back of the megacorp grasp on content, and makes things easier for the small developer.

Except it's not a universal, open standard. It's a DRM-centric plugin interface.

Since this standard is part of the HTML spec, mobile devices should be fine, which had always been the big concern.

Assuming your mobile device vendor negotiates royalty rights for $SERVICE's EME module.Netflix doesn't like your handset vendor? No EME module for you.

I can't see a real downside to this. This isn't your grandmas drm.

You can't see the downside because you don't understand the issue. Like grandma.