Tim Berners-Lee gave us an opening to stop DRM in Web standards. Imagine thinking DRM is good LOL
70 replies, posted
[QUOTE]This week, the chief arbiter of Web standards, Tim Berners-Lee, decided not to exercise his power to extend the development timeline for the [B]Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)[/B] Web technology standard. The EME standardization effort, sponsored by streaming giants like Google and Netflix, aims to make it cheaper and more efficient to impose [B][URL="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management"]Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)[/URL][/B] systems on Web users. The streaming companies' representatives within the [B]World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)[/B] were unable to finish EME within the time allotted by the W3C, and had asked Berners-Lee for an extension through next year.
Berners-Lee made his surprising decision on Tuesday, as explained in an [URL="https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016Oct/0009.html"]email announcement[/URL] by W3C representative Philippe Le Hégaret. Instead of granting a time extension — as he has already done once — Berners-Lee delegated the decision to the W3C's general decision-making body, the [URL="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List"]Advisory Committee[/URL]. The Advisory Committee includes diverse entities from universities to companies to nonprofits, and it is divided as to whether EME should be part of Web standards. It is entirely possible that the Advisory Committee will reject the time extension and terminate EME development, marking an important victory for the free Web.
EME ([URL="https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media"]full text[/URL]) is a proposed technological standard for Web-based DRM, digital handcuffs that video-streaming services use to micromanage users' access to legitimately obtained media. As Web users asserted while protesting the W3C's meetings in [URL="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/from-the-web-to-the-streets-protesting-drm"]March[/URL] and [URL="https://ansol.org/DRM-no-HTML-EN"]September[/URL], DRM is coercive, disempowering and insulting to users. It also causes broad collateral damage to the health of our digital society. DRM's dark history — from the [URL="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/ten-years-after-sony-rootkit"]Sony rootkit malware[/URL] to [URL="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/end-DMCA-anti-circumvention-provisions"]draconian anti-circumvention laws[/URL] — demonstrates that integrating it into Web standards would be nothing but bad for Web users. EME is predicted to [URL="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/security-researchers-tell-w3c-protect-researchers-who-investigate-browsers"]stymie security research[/URL], curtail privacy, freedom, and [URL="http://www.accessiq.org/news/news/2016/08/concerns-raised-for-assistive-technology-development-as-w3c-debates-encrypted"]accessibility[/URL], and set back the [URL="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present"]interoperability[/URL] that is necessary for innovation on the Web.
[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/tim_bernerslee_just_gave_us_opening_stop_drm_web_standards[/URL]
Thanks for editing the title, mods.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166674][url]https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/tim_bernerslee_just_gave_us_opening_stop_drm_web_standards[/url][/QUOTE]
oh look you're posting about drm again
drm is not inherently bad on the internet
so basically he's pushing for an extension on the life of silverlight and flash
[editline]7th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166689]oh look you're posting about drm again
drm is not inherently bad on the internet[/QUOTE]
As unintrusive as it is and as much as the licensers want it I don't see why they keep fighting this.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51166695]so basically he's pushing for an extension on the life of silverlight and flash
[editline]7th October 2016[/editline]
As unintrusive as it is and as much as the licensers want it I don't see why they keep fighting this.[/QUOTE]
because the internet is only for GNU free software duh
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166689]oh look you're posting about drm again
drm is not inherently bad on the internet[/QUOTE]
Actually it is bad along with being inherently flawed. There's always a way to get around it and it just punishes the consumer. Dunno about windows but it's ridiculously easy to get a perfect copy of a DRM'd video with some screen recording software and a loopback audio device on Linux. iirc a DRM'd video will refuse to play if screen recording software is detected on Windows. It's not so easy, if not impossible, to fuck someone over on Linux when you have such fine grained control over your computer.
[editline]now[/editline]
It's been proven time and time again that the solution to piracy is to make the product more easily accessible and have a centralized distribution platform, not lock it down with loads of DRM.
DRM is bad because it's inflexibly by design, whereas modern technology is flexible and adaptable software-wise.
It's literally a ball-and-chain in this day & age.
I don't have an irreconcilable problem with DRM in some situations, but I do with just about every real world implementation thus far.
I don't see why DRM is good at all, not having DRM does not mean people are free to pirate your product, there's still law in place to prevent this, plus DRM is completely useless, sure you prevent your average joe from being able to rip stuff easily, but your average joe will not be the one uploading rips, there are people dedicated to do this and that's where your average joe gets it's pirated movies from.
All DRM does is restrict legit users.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166704]because the internet is only for GNU free software duh[/QUOTE]
I don't see how this is related, there's no problem in using proprietary technology in the web, but having it be in the actual standard is troubling, the web should run on all devices, and while the EME is just a way to interact with the actual DRM is probably not going to be porteable.
DRM is a technological way to restrict freedoms, even those given by law, for example, in some cases breaking DRM is illegal, which means you can't enforce your (for example) fair use rights.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;51166754]Actually it is bad along with being inherently flawed. There's always a way to get around it and it just punishes the consumer. Dunno about windows but it's ridiculously easy to get a perfect copy of a DRM'd video with some screen recording software and a loopback audio device on Linux. iirc a DRM'd video will refuse to play if screen recording software is detected on Windows. It's not so easy, if not impossible, to fuck someone over on Linux when you have such fine grained control over your computer.
[editline]now[/editline]
It's been proven time and time again that the solution to piracy is to make the product more easily accessible and have a centralized distribution platform, not lock it down with loads of DRM.[/QUOTE]
Even on Windows and Mac you can just run the web browser in a sandbox, making it unable to detect any recording software.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166799][B]I don't see why DRM is good at all, not having DRM does not mean people are free to pirate your product, there's still law in place to prevent this[/B], plus DRM is completely useless, sure you prevent your average joe from being able to rip stuff easily, but your average joe will not be the one uploading rips, there are people dedicated to do this and that's where your average joe gets it's pirated movies from.
All DRM does is restrict legit users.
I don't see how this is related, there's no problem in using proprietary technology in the web, but having it be in the actual standard is troubling, the web should run on all devices, and while the EME is just a way to interact with the actual DRM is probably not going to be porteable.[/QUOTE]
no there isn't
camgirls don't put DRM on their content, and them playing whack-a-mole with DMCA takedowns is pointless
for every prosecution of piracy, there's probably a million instances of piracy
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;51166803]Even on Windows and Mac you can just run the web browser in a sandbox, making it unable to detect any recording software.[/QUOTE]
And if all fails you can just capture your DVI output with a capture card.
[editline]7th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166809]no there isn't
camgirls don't put DRM on their content, and them playing whack-a-mole with DMCA takedowns is pointless
for every prosecution of piracy, there's probably a million instances of piracy[/QUOTE]
Hm... as far as I know pirating movies is still illegal all over the world, so yes there is a law that makes it illegal to pirate.
So the fact that wack-a-mole does not work doesn't make you think DRM is also a pointless wack-a-mole?
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166811]And if all fails you can just capture your DVI output with a capture card.
[editline]7th October 2016[/editline]
Hm... as far as I know pirating movies is still illegal, so yes there is a law that makes it illegal to pirate.[/QUOTE]
and it's illegal to perform a california rolling stop
yet people do anyways
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166825]and it's illegal to perform a california rolling stop
yet people do anyways[/QUOTE]
And then what's your argument against DRM?, no matter how much you try piracy is never going to decrease or stop, specially with movies and music, so why bother and cause issues to legit users?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166689]oh look you're posting about drm again
drm is not inherently bad on the internet[/QUOTE]
DRM a lot of the time ends up punishing consumers and making it better to get around it than to use it legitimately.
EX: What happens when your monitor bugs out and your computer doesn't see it as "HDCP" capable? You can't watch HD"CopyProtection" content now. Those amazon prime videos you bought? Nope, your monitor isn't a LEGITIMATE display, can't want them in HD even though you paid for it.
What happens when you can't log into a video game server, thus you can't play your game, or the DRM server doesn't exist any more, meaning no one can play the game... or your uplay account was phished, but you can't go in offline mode so you can't play the game.
etcetc.
The existence and use of DRM is fine; having open web standards openly incorporate DRM is deeply concerning.
Consider the difference between DRM'd coffee pods existing and an ISO standard dictating that all new manufactured coffee pots be capable of handling the DRM.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51166837]DRM a lot of the time ends up punishing consumers and making it better to get around it than to use it legitimately.
EX: What happens when your monitor bugs out and your computer doesn't see it as "HDCP" capable? You can't watch HD"CopyProtection" content now. Those amazon prime videos you bought? Nope, your monitor isn't a LEGITIMATE display, can't want them in HD even though you paid for it.
What happens when you can't log into a video game server, thus you can't play your game
etcetc.[/QUOTE]
And you also have to look at this as a manufacturer, imagine you want to develop a new operating system or a new CPU architecture, if EME passes you will not be able to run it on your new platform unless the provider decides to port their DRM to your platform.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166834]And then what's your argument against DRM?, no matter how much you try piracy is never going to decrease or stop, specially with movies and music, so why bother and cause issues to legit users?[/QUOTE]
my argument is against people like you who think that every thing added to a "free and open" standard that somehow impinges on somebody's ability to do something not good somewhere is immediately the worst thing ever
have you actually read the EME doc?
actually you know what i'll let you read the abstract section and you come back to me and tell me what it says wrt digital rights management
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51166839]The existence and use of DRM is fine; having open web standards openly incorporate DRM is deeply concerning.
Consider the difference between DRM'd coffee pods existing and an ISO standard dictating that all new manufactured coffee pots be capable of handling the DRM.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I am against DRM in general and consider it unethical, but I can't really get mad.
But having it be part of the web standard? No way!
when DRM doesn't protect shit when it gets cracked, how do you justify DRM?
How do you justify DRM when you put it on a thing, and literally a day later that same thing is on piracy sites. What the fuck is even the point of that?
There are so many cases of just video game DRM failing to protect against piracy. Imagine how easy it is to steal movies.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166842]my argument is against people like you who think that every thing added to a "free and open" standard that somehow impinges on somebody's ability to do something not good somewhere is immediately the worst thing ever
have you actually read the EME doc?
actually you know what i'll let you read the abstract section and you come back to me and tell me what it says wrt digital rights management[/QUOTE]
Do you want me to quote the EME doc directly? alright i'll do it.
[QUOTE]This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the Clear Key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.[/QUOTE]
This means that EME is just a way to communicate with any DRM, as I already stated before, which is bad, because it means not all devices/OSes can use it.
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166852]Do you want me to quote the EME doc directly? alright i'll do it.
This means that EME is just a way to communicate with any DRM, as I already stated before, which is bad, because it means not all devices/OSes can use it.[/QUOTE]
wrong
EME is an html standard that doesn't require any more effort on the client end than implementing html5 anyways
plus if all DRM standards use EME then you don't need to worry about DRM standard 12354 working on your OS, if it supports EME it just works
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166865]wrong
EME is an html standard that doesn't require any more effort on the client end than implementing html5 anyways
plus if all DRM standards use EME then you don't need to worry about DRM standard 12354 working on your OS, if it supports EME it just works[/QUOTE]
"Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) is a W3C draft specification for providing a communication channel between web browsers and digital rights management (DRM) agent software."
the number of people in this thread misunderstanding what DRM and this DRM does is astounding
[editline]7th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=eirexe;51166885]"Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) is a W3C draft specification for providing a communication channel between web browsers and digital rights management (DRM) agent software."[/QUOTE]
the agent typically being the adobe one which most everyone has anyway
Without EME couldn't you just literally right click > save as on any Netflix movie/whatever?
[QUOTE=smurfy;51167013]Without EME couldn't you just literally right click > save as on any Netflix movie/whatever?[/QUOTE]
Kinda. EME adds a barrier to decoding the live video stream. Screen recording has its issues as does recording from DVI where as downloading the direct stream has highest quality of every aspect of the video. I guess you could consider it passive DRM.
[QUOTE=smurfy;51167013]Without EME couldn't you just literally right click > save as on any Netflix movie/whatever?[/QUOTE]
Well if you are worried about that specific thing it's already possible, look at youtube.
I can't wait for EME to include text so someone can write an anti-adblock CDM.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;51166754]It's been proven time and time again that the solution to piracy is to make the product more easily accessible and have a centralized distribution platform, not lock it down with loads of DRM.[/QUOTE]
It's amazing that these companies would rather waste money on making it a slight bit more inconvinient for pirates to download, rather than make it easier for everyone to access your product. I mean, it's almost like having a [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/"]better service will make people want to use it or something[/URL]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;51166689]oh look you're posting about drm again
drm is not inherently bad on the internet[/QUOTE]
All DRM is bad, hand's down. At one time in this damned country it was perfectly legal to record mixtapes from the radio and share them with your friends(so long as you weren't selling it), but now you can't give your buddy your mp3s because it's a criminal offense. Abolishing copyright(as it exists today) for works of art would make the world a much better place.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;51167976]It's amazing that these companies would rather waste money on making it a slight bit more inconvinient for pirates to download, rather than make it easier for everyone to access your product. I mean, it's almost like having a [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/"]better service will make people want to use it or something[/URL][/QUOTE]
Spotify has DRM too. So um.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.