An argument in favour of the W3C policy is that DRM video plugins could be retired but what about all those sites that attempt to prevent right-click|save-as on photos, or on JavaScript, and why wouldn't they use DRM too? The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?
EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
131–140 of 280 posts
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one. Steam is still DRMed and can be annoying enough. Try to get Loom there to play on your Scummvm and good luck with that. I don't use Steam since I don't want to support DRMed approach. I use GOG and other DRM free distributors for gaming.…
Steam has a unique market position, with an extremely loyal user base. The really interesting thought experiment I see is this: What if Steam quietly went DRM-free tomorrow? What would change? What wouldn't?
Netflix also has a big and arguably loyal user base, same goes for Xbox, PlayStation and other heavily DRMed platforms. Does it indicate that DRM approach is ethical or that simply many people are oblivious to its potential problems? As often, many ignore it until they are bitten. If that happens, people learn about DRM the hard way.
About Steam going DRM free - I'd like that, and I'd subscribe to their service if they'd do it. But they are heavily involved with DRM addicted gaming companies, and unlike GOG don't put any effort into convincing them to publish their games DRM free. GOG invests a lot of time and effort to do it. For Steam it would either mean an enormous amount of reworking their contracts, or simply cutting off a significant part of their catalog. They aren't as principled as GOG to do that.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#133The market problem is that people want to consume expensive art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle . These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question…
People hate DRM because it gives the content producers too much power, and then they treat consumers like muppets: http://neosting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pirated_vs_le...
The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get paid, but giving them full control of the pipe will end up harming everyone (producers included).
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix uses DRM, and is one of the sponsors of this attempt to add DRM to HTML5.
Yes, that's a shame. But: Netflix makes it easy & convenient. They are not the bad guy. They are really stuck between a rock & a hard place. (Between old school distributors of content (Hollywood), squeezing them for money to make sure they have no margin), and ISP's (Comcast, AT&T) who are saying, "Hey, Netflix is popular, >50% of bandwidth, so let's shake them down" (net neutrality needs to keep them from doing thi…
> Don't blame Netflix for that DRM behavior.
I'm not. Given the circumstances, it's reasonable for Netflix to use DRM.
What I _am_ blaming them for is corrupting W3C: inducing them to ignore their stated missions and goals to introduce DRM into HTML5.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious: how do you think an EME standard in HTML5 will change that? Just because your browser supports EME doesn't oblige CDM vendors to produce a version compatible with your platform.
That was my point: someone claimed that a special, DRM-enabled "safe browser" would never happen as long as there is open source, and I am saying that no, in fact, open source is not going to save us here. The problem is that there is almost no chance of an open source CDM, and a near-guarantee that proprietary CDMs will dominate. Open source browsers will either capitulate and include DRM, or fail to do so and langu…
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the exact opposite of that.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will this make the binary-only, proprietary DRM blobs less platform specific, exactly?
I suspect most DRM today exists for Windows only. Thanks to Android, there are now a ton of consumer devices powered by Linux that can browse the web. If publishers started using EME, they would probably be encouraged to compile Windows and Linux blobs for this reason.
I disagree. The CEO of the W3C thinks this unlikely, and there's already the example of Netflix. They are one of the primary agitators behind EME, and they refuse to make their system available on Linux.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you misunderstood. The current model will die, like everything.
DRM model will die. But such proposals like this one with putting DRM into HTML standard will only prolong its lingering and it's another serious reason to oppose them.
I'm not so sure. DRM was the only way iTunes could get the record labels to play ball and they quickly realized the potential and gave it up.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post includes a lot of words, but none of these even attempt to justify your claim that there exists open, uncrackable DRM.
The whole reason I started this thread is that it doesn't currently exist but I think it should.
And I think invisible pink unicorns should exist, limitations of reality be damned!
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. That's a pretty narrow criterion for complaint. How about the fact that the purpose of the W3C is to oppose everything that DRM enables? How about the fact that blind, deaf or otherwise-handicapped people have real trouble accessing DRM-crippled content? What of the fact that DRM bit-rot causes massive cultural content loss? Are you concerned by the fa…
I strongly agree with you in general. However, can you provide a pointer to more information about the accessibility problem? One might argue that integrating DRM with HTML5 media playback would actually improve accessibility, since it would separate the DRM from the generally inaccessible Flash-based UIs of current players.
There is no difference between the proposal and existing closed-source, proprietary blobs like Flash.
All the W3C is talking about here is standardising the interface between Javascript and those blobs. There is no way in which the presence of EME support in a browser will improve accessibility.
Consider an example. Before EME, content is rendered in an accessibility-invisible Flash plugin. After EME, the exact same thing is true, only there is now a standard way for the browser to control the plugin.
Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not correct for W3C to enforce policies that are worth billions of dollars to big companies at the average user's expense.
That's the thing, though. It's not at the average user's expense. It's only at the technological idealist's expense. The average user is in fact benefited greatly by having an open, standardized approach, because it increases the likelihood that things will Just Work™.
No, it doesn't. The EME standard as proposed makes no guarantees about the availability of a CDM on any particular browser or operating system.