NetFlix is one of the companies pushing this.
Silverlight was great at keeping DRM from HTML5 till Microsoft decided to be 'cool'.
The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
21–30 of 158 posts
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#22TL;DR: # Myths 1. that DRM doesn’t work; that it exists to protect creators, but since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely ineffective and irrelevant 2. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Micrisoft Silverlight 3. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other m…
Honest question - why is having a framework that allows for others to provide some form of DRM different from any other plugin system that exists currently?
Different, how? It's different in several ways. For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; meaning it's designed specifically with 1 use case in mind. Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality; I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer. I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what you're looking for here.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#23What is the complaint. It isn't clearly summed up here. Noone will force you to use DRM on your website. Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM. What do you care what others choose to do with their sites and content, unless you believe you have the right to access everything everyone creates, in an unrestricted fashion, for free, in perpetuity.
The primary complaint is that, for the first time since the tag, W3C is creating an API that by design won't work on some systems.
If that isn't automatically bad to you on the face of it (it is to me, I want to be able to use random-OS-of-the-month as long as it has a good browser), you create a scenario where those on top stay on top by the grace of already being on top.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#24DRM is based on obfuscation at the core. How would this ever work with open source browsers?
It wouldn't. The explicitly stated plan from the people who originated this proposal involves proprietary browser plugins.
Not necessarily browser plugins. Could be browser or OS or hardware.. Each website has control over what DRM it accepts, which leads to a world where hardware eventually becomes the requirement.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#25TL;DR: # Myths 1. that DRM doesn’t work; that it exists to protect creators, but since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely ineffective and irrelevant 2. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Micrisoft Silverlight 3. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other m…
Just to nitpick, the post you linked to by Ian Hickson does illustrate how DRM has been used to limit functionality, but both your post and his doesn't explain why "copyright protection" is a straw-man? I don't believe it is a fair argument to say that copyright protection and whatever functionality they enforce or prevent by use of DRM are mutually exclusive.
Although, I do see the point that some parties could hide behind the "We need DRM to protect our copyright\prevent piracy" flag and instead use it to lock-in consumers and build a walled-garden.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#26My take is that Google in particular likes this development (though are probably trying to stay away from it publicly for political reasons) because it allows them to easily (ie. with studio blessing) pilot monetizing their vast YouTube-watching userbase by offering paid content services and user profiling far beyond what is available on cable networks (eg. by selling 'anonymized' matches of consumer viewing behaviou…
I think Google has a checklist of Chromebook deficiencies and they are just checking Netflix off by doing this. That it will ultimately make it a little easier to do things like you suggest is just an added bonus.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#27Back in the real world, the web is not inevitable. The alternative to HTML5 DRM is for vendors to turn away from the web and HTML5 altogether.
The web is still open by default, versus other platforms being closed by default. The best architecture is to support fine-grained plugins with well-defined semantics than just some big black box element that could be running anything.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#28TL;DR: # Myths 1. that DRM doesn’t work; that it exists to protect creators, but since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely ineffective and irrelevant 2. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Micrisoft Silverlight 3. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other m…
Just to nitpick, the post you linked to by Ian Hickson does illustrate how DRM has been used to limit functionality, but both your post and his doesn't explain why "copyright protection" is a straw-man? I don't believe it is a fair argument to say that copyright protection and whatever functionality they enforce or prevent by use of DRM are mutually exclusive. Although, I do see the point that some parties could hide…
Calling "copyright protection" a straw-man is in itself a straw-man.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#29Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards.
There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger.
Really, all you'll do by resisting this, is teach the majority of consumers who don't know any better that the Web sucks, and all of the enjoyable things they want are to be found on iOS or other proprietary locked down distribution platforms. That if you want apps that deliver the stuff you are interested in, you have to look outside the web.
Back when Chrome proposed dropping H264 support, I was infuriated, even though I fully support WebM as the mandatory to implement codec. I don't think "purity" really serves the platform, flexibility does, and the best way to register you don't like DRM is to simply stop consuming any and all media which uses it. Not just Web media, but all media that's DRMed.
A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser.
Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users
#30What is the complaint. It isn't clearly summed up here. Noone will force you to use DRM on your website. Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM. What do you care what others choose to do with their sites and content, unless you believe you have the right to access everything everyone creates, in an unrestricted fashion, for free, in perpetuity.
> Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM.
If you want to stay legal and watch their content, you bet they will. Major networks will require their distributors to use this DRM. Sure, you don't have to use their content, but the point of fighting it is that we want to use their content and are trying to prevent them from this step.