Proposed Video Copy Protection Scheme For HTML5 Raises W3C Ire 412
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "A new Web standard proposal authored by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix seeks to bring copy protection mechanisms to the Web. The Encrypted Media Extensions draft defines a framework for enabling the playback of protected media content in the Web browser. The proposal is controversial and has raised concern among some parties that are participating in the standards process. In a discussion on the W3C HTML mailing list, critics questioned whether the proposed framework would really provide the level of security demanded by content providers. The aim of the proposal is not to mandate a complete DRM platform, but to provide the necessary components for a generic key-based content decryption system. It is designed to work with pluggable modules that implement the actual decryption mechanisms."
So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Any provider which refuses to enter the market without the presence of the impossible should die off.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus fucking Christ, shill much?
You paycheck form the MPAA is ready now, please come to window 5. Thank you.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
There has never been a movie made by anyone that's so good it offsets the damage the copyright lobby has done to our culture since 1978 and not one dime of my money will support them. It's *just* entertainment.
HOLLYWOOD MUST DIE
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Funny)
.. and bring back Firefly!!
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's your choice and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't force it on everyone else. A lot more people enjoy watching content produced by Hollywood than are up in arms over standardising DRM.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's your choice and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't force it on everyone else. A lot more people enjoy watching content produced by Hollywood than are up in arms over standardising DRM.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights. It's the 21st century. None of the people in the US of A have known war on their soil, have known hunger and a great repression, none have known a repressing regime. So they don't know.
And apparently you're one of them.
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces. I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else. It's been that way since the beginning of DRM and it will not stop. DRM enables piracy because DRM is doomed to begin with - since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!! When will they learn?
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What right is that, exactly? The right to benefit from someone else's hard work without having to give anything back?
You can quibble over middlemen taking the lion's share, but someone spent a lot of time and someone risked a lot of money investing in every blockbuster movie, AAA game, and so on. I don't think you can credibly claim that those products have no value when millions of people pay real money to enjoy them, and millions more rip them off so they obviously enjoy the products even if they don't pay for them.
And apparently you're one of them.
Please don't insult those of us who have been lifelong supporters of civil liberties, and who have experienced the real consequences of things like over-reaching government and terrorist attacks, by equating war and repressive regimes with not letting you watch a film without DRM. I promise you will not convince anyone of anything that way, other than possibly the nature of your character and the likelihood (or lack thereof) that you personally have ever actually suffered from the kinds of serious problems you trotted out for the catchy soundbite.
Re: (Score:3)
those who refuse to boycott them
Wrong. A lot of people are boycotting hollywood, me included. Not only that I never miss an opportunity to remind people that buying a movie ticket *is* voting with your money. I've said as much several times in this forum, usually prompting replies that amount to "Well any boycott of Hollywood won't be successful so we'll just keep watching movies and complaining." If you buy a movie ticket, purchase a cd or dvd YOU ARE VOTING FOR SOPA/PIPA. Also, I'm boycotting Andr
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What rights? And do those conflict with copyrights?
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet. Ahhhhh, that's not a right that is written down in the constitution, but that's something we enjoy all the same. Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces.
Pretty pointless statement when you follow it up with 'I don't'.
I don't mean I consume all the stuff that hollywood produces. The stuff without DRM (music) I buy. The stuff with DRM I ... well, I don't buy.
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Yet you openly admit to funding companies that do, sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
Mind you I'm on Linux. So buying a DVD and watching it on Linux makes me a criminal, since no player has been "approved" by the producers, and by the great law of the DMCA, I am not allowed by law to "crack" the DRM that is built in. So if I want to watch a DVD on my PC, I have to be an outlaw (or to pay to get Windows and an overly expensive software player that I shouldn't have to pay for in the first place). I'd rather download the damn movie and be done with it. This way I'm also an outlaw, but I didn't fund the cretins that made me an outlaw.
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
Why? If DRM were transparent and the system just worked i'd be happy with it, i want it to be a license for me to play movies, not a license for a particular device of mine to play movies.
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device. The entire point is to give the producers control over the way you will enjoy your media. If they get their way, they will end up controlling everything, including the price and brands of TV producers. They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
But more than that, DRM is doomed because all it takes nowadays is *ONE* human being for a movie to be on the internet. And no matter the protection, you will always have at least one person on earth willing to spend 2 hours with his professional camcorder in front of his TV set to have the movie on the internet for the entire world to download. That's what we call the analog hole. At some point, the digital signal - which can be DRMed - has to be transformed to analog to reach our sensors. At that point, the DRM is necessarily gone.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else.
Well yes, and that's the problem with it, those who pirate movies get a better experience than the studios' actual customers. Somehow studios just haven't realized that.
That's not the problem, it's a side effect of all the rest.
since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!!
I'm not sure you understand DRM, it is to prevent you from using that content outside the
Re: (Score:3)
And this statement is based on what exactly?
Well, basic arithmetic, for one thing.
Hollywood might sell 50,000,000-100,000,000 tickets [the-numbers.com] for a blockbuster hit, and that's just people going out to see the movie. Obviously many more people then see it for the first time on DVD/BD, or when it's shown on TV.
Can you cite any source that shows even 1% of that many people up in arms over standardising DRM?
Re: (Score:3)
Then how do you explain, for example, Xera [xera.eu]? (I don't follow Spanish music generally, but I discovered Xera by accident and happen to like them. For the curious, in a hyphenated word they could be described as "electro-folk".)
Since their primary language is Asturian rather than Spanish, I would be surprised if they had much of a following in Latin America. And even if they do, most of them probably haven't contributed monetarily, as the two albums they've released so far have been under a Creative Commons
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. It's not like Avatar was a webisode. ;) A friend of mine is a B movie director working his way up in Hollywood. We're talking 5 and 6 figure budgets, but that's still a hell of a lot of money.
But it's just a reality that they hate Netflix, streaming, downloading, and anything you can think of because it is cannibalizing their DVD sales.
Or so they think. Fact is, the DVD is pretty dead for most people who actually want the latest/greatest. BluRay has an edge, but how long will that last.
The problem with the record companies is just that *record* companies, denoting a cluelessness beyond any doubt about changing technology.
The MPAA was fighting VHS. You think they actually get this stuff, even now?
In the end, they'll come begging. The proliferation of MP3's and Pandora like services forced the RIAA. And in the end, the same will happen here. They're just lucky we don't all have fiber yet.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they don't, because I'm very happy with the current movie offerings. I just saw In Time and it was great movie. I doubt something like that could be made with amateurs. I was happy to pay for it, because it gave me good value and I know making good entertainment costs a lot of money.
Your point isn't relevant to this. The issue of DRM is independent of the issue of piracy. It is entirely possible to do away with all DRM and have the major studios still make bucketloads of money producing their overpriced schlock.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM will be required by content providers
Which is why they will never see a penny from me. Unfortunately, nobody else has the backbone needed to stand up to them and say, "No, you are not going to take control of my computer in exchange for entertaining me for a few hours."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an attempt to intrude on and limit what I can do with my hardware, which is unacceptable. It's as if they barged into my home and demanded to to have a guard standing there to make sure I don't get the idea of duplicating a DVD.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I object to the enforcement technology itself existing. Whether the service is something I want to use or not is another matter entirely.
I don't really care
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws and influence. If they get their way eventually hardware without such things simply won't exist. There won't be a way not to buy into it, because every single computer will come with it included.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't. Yet one more reason to object to having my hardware and software be forced to support something I don't want to.
Here we disagree: I do want to own my movies. I want to be the one who decides, absolutely, what I watch, when I watch, where I watch, and on what terms I watch.
Why not? If everybody right now decided that they will not accept DRM, it'd die tomorrow. The more opposition there is, and the less convenient it is, the faster it will die. It won't go away because the industry decides to be nice one day, it will because it's the most profitable option. People complained a lot about DRM on music, and look, it went away.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anybody want to have access to "DRM protected content"? It gains you nothing over plain content. When DRM for music went away, were you suddenly unable to buy music? No, they still sell it to you, just without DRM. And you probably get it cheaper too, because without DRM they have no hold on you.
And by making DRM a standard, they're making a decision for me too. See how it works?
I don't want to provide support for DRM in any shape or form. But it's not as easy as just not subscribing to Netflix, because this kind of standard will ensure that I will ultimately have to pay for it, in one way or another. By simply using a browser that supports it, because there's a standard for it, I will be counted as somebody who can play that kind of content, no matter how much I don't want to. And if I use a commercial OS, part of the money I pay will be spent on developing the functionality that Netflix wants, even if I want nothing to do with Netflix.
If Netflix really wants some special video playing tech, they can manufacture their own tablet, and write their own software. So that their subscribers cover 100% of the cost, and I 0%.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Netflix would be just as happy to do away with all DRM. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be able to get enough content licenses to have a sustainable business if that were the case.
re: analogies and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, first off, I think your analogy is a little extreme ... but regardless? The initial invasiveness isn't as serious as the long-term potential for hassles for the end-user.
I'm sure my HTML 5 enabled browser will perform just fine whether or not DRM extensions are added to the codebase. (If they caused performance or reliability issues like random freezes/crashes, people would scream and complain until those problems were fixed -- just like any other code.)
IMO, the hassle comes in when we transition from traditional cable TV/satellite/over the air broadcasts to internet streaming for our media content. We've long enjoyed certain usage rights for said content (such as court rulings allowing personal use of the VCR to record television programming). But now, the studios and content owners view the move to digital as an excuse to take back some of those usage rights. At best, I think we're looking at a whole new round of court cases just to win back rights we had previously, if everything moves to streaming with DRM. (You know they're not going to simply allow you to click to save a copy of this DRM enabled content as you stream it to your browser, for the sake of "time shifting".)
Worse yet, there's FAR from a guarantee we'd even win such cases. The content owners like to use the argument that these digital copies encourage copyright infringements in a way the lossy analog copies of VHS tape days didn't. (Duplicating digital content doesn't create poorer quality copies; it creates perfectly identical ones. And that means, by extension, you can make a copy of a copy or a copy, and it's just as good as possessing the original content first.)
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why people get so upset when content makers try to control their content.
Probably because regardless of whether or not we actually watch their "content," we are forbidden from publishing any information about weaknesses in their copy restriction systems. In fact, we are forbidden even publishing hyperlinks to such information, as per the 2600 decss ruling. These people are not only unfriendly, they are actively attacking important and fundamental rights in my country, at my expense, for their benefit.
The word "enemy" is appropriate. The copyright lobby should be considered an enemy, especially to anyone who is a fan of free speech, free-libre computing, and a free and open Internet. We are upset because every time our enemy tries to assert more control, we wind up suffering for it.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why people get so upset when content makers try to control their content. If you don't like it, just don't partake of their content, but it's not worth getting all upset about it. If you think things should be different, then only support those companies that believe what you do. But surely you should never be watching any mainstream movie, because then you are buying into their beliefs
So by that same logic, if I sell you my car, you have no problems with me controlling where you drive with that car? And you also do not have any problems with me pushing technologies that allows me to remotely control that car? Or me pushing technologies that allow me to remote control your car even when you did not buy your car from me?
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
> I don't understand why people get so upset when content makers try to control their content.
It's not theirs to control really. It was never intended to be. Copyright is not some sort of virtual land grab and copyright is not property. It is something that is a derivative of the commons and it is something that's supposed to go back into the commons.
The idea that an artist can "control their content" is abusive to the social contract implicit in copyright. It's a legal fiction. It's propaganda. It's corporations pretending they have rights they don't really have it.
Once you publish, "control" is and should be very limited.
People get so upset when content makers try to "control their content" because it inevitably leads to trampling the property rights of the individual.
Re: (Score:3)
DRM == giving control of my computer to somebody else.
No, it won't actually do that, because I still could
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The encryption is limiting what I can do with it. Can I, for example, watch it on the FreeBSD-based media centre / NAS that is connected to the projector in my living room? Can I watch it on my HP TouchPad? Can I copy it to my phone and watch it when I'm away from the Internet?
I can do all of these things with DVDs that I rent. They're trying to sell streaming as a replacement for DVD rental, so it needs to provide at least the same capabilities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
nobody else has the backbone needed to stand up to them and say, "No, you are not going to take control of my computer in exchange for entertaining me for a few hours."
I do. But that raises the question of why you think they're taking over your computer. Flash doesn't take control of your computer (unless you're talking about memory/cpu footprint), it just encrypts the channel. Once you're done with the entertainment it's gone. This isn't palladium we're talking about, it's simply a way to encrypt information.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Informative)
Taking over my entire computer? No, it will not do that. Making some part of my computer work against me is what they want to do here, and I am not going to allow such a thing. They are free to encrypt the information they send me, so long as I am free to decrypt it how and when I choose, and to tell others about the decryption process.
Re: (Score:3)
There are about a million other solutions, the first of which is not looking for "their entertainment" and the second of which is downloading it somewhere that it's actually legal (downloads aren't illegal).
Nobody has to be without it. However, if that is the choice, I guarantee they will download it as a result. That's where it comes from: treating your customers like shit. Nice try though.
Re: (Score:3)
Really?
Show one country, worldwide, that actually declared *downloading* to be actually declared illegal. I don't ask you this from a "prove a negative" difficulty, I mean this to highlight that copyright infringement doesn't involve downloading or require it. Even the attempts of Hadopi, of which zero cases have actually been finalized (and tons have been dropped) can't even associate this one and those don't even involve going to trial.
Nice try though! Go back to your delusional RIAA/MAFIAA hole.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
They keep their locked down content to themselves.
And the internet is for unlocked content.
Either they play by the rules of the playing field or they go elsewhere.
They should stop trying to break the internet and go somewhere else where they can be happy.
Rules? What Rules? (Score:3)
They keep their locked down content to themselves.
And the internet is for unlocked content.
Either they play by the rules of the playing field or they go elsewhere.
They should stop trying to break the internet and go somewhere else where they can be happy.
I wasn't aware "The Internet" had any rules.
Traffic moves both openly and encrypted.
Some sites are accessible to anyone while others are restricted. Some services are free while others demand payment.
Slashdot has its own "locked content" and paid subscription benefits.
Content can go elsewhere.
To the Internet enabled HDTV, the video game console and set top box.
To the app store and the walled garden of the iOS, the Kindle and Windows 8 Metro.
The problem for the geek is that users move to the platforms
Re: (Score:3)
> Who says so? You? Isn't it kinda ironic that you try to tell others how to use the internet while being mad when they try to do the same?
I don't say so. I say by the process of the medium it must be unlocked. If I am going to display something by processing "data" then I have to have all the information needed to decode and display it. The system must be unlocked by the nature of the process. The only way to "lock" it is to hide data that exists on my hardware from myself. That means you have to make m
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That means you have to make my hardware and my data not be mine.
I'm pretty sure that streaming a movie on Netflix doesn't mean that you now *own* a copy of that movie, or have any right to dictate what the studio does with it. Unless someone appointed you King of the Internet and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure that everyone is free to create whatever streaming standards they damn well want to for THEIR content.
Re: (Score:2)
Not any more ironic than the position that governments shouldn't limit speech
Re: (Score:2)
We, those who built, maintain and understand the internet, say so.
Keep using Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine. There is a place for free software and there is a place for proprietary software. DRM is security-by-obscurity which by definition requires you to keep the implementation secret. That can't be done with free software, only by proprietary software. And the proper place for proprietary software on the web is in stand alone applications and plugins, not in open standards.
HTML5 will work great for YouTube, Vimeo, and the thousands of other people who don't care about DRM. Those who do can stick with proprietary solutions.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the original AC, but it's quite simple: security by obscurity can't be done in proprietary software any more than it can be in Free Software. It doesn't matter whether the attacker is reading the source code or reading the disassembled binary. In some ways it's easier to work with the binary - that way you only see what it is doing, not what the programmer thought it was doing.
Encryption is a technique for allowing one person to get a message to the recipient without someone intercepting the messag
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree. At the end of the day, if "content providers" are stubborn and refuse to release their "content" without DRM, while at the same time customers refuse all DRM, then those "content producers" will cease to exist, and will be replaced by new content providers, who are actually willing to... you know... provide content.
Oh, are they not willing to show their movies to people unless it is incredibly inconvenient for customers? Okay, well then they get what they wanted: nobody sees their movie. Yay! They got their way! No 'unauthorized' viewing of their content, because there is no viewing of theircontent! They should be very happy about that.
Consumers have done quite shockingly well at refusing DRM over the last decade. We defeated the music industry for the time being. I think it is quite likely that sufficient pushback from consumers could win the fight against movie companies, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, are they not willing to show their movies to people unless it is incredibly inconvenient for customers?
Netflix and Hulu are probably the two most convenient ways for me to watch the shows I enjoy, and the only reason they exist is because of DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
What, seriously? It's going pretty well. Although I was shocked to see it happen, consumers won the DRM fight against music companies.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
And... how's that a negative?
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 video is already gaining market share. Do you actually suppose flash is going to remain when Adobe is dropping support for it? Microsoft already dropped support for silverlight entirely (not that it had any originally)
Yeah, ask the RIAA about that... DRM free mp3s (Score:3)
DRM will be required by content providers. HTML5 video will never gain any market share without it. Otherwise we will continue to have Flash and Silverlight.
"We"... are you speaking for the movie studios? Haha, you honestly think we mind what "you" use?
Not to be too flippant, but all the DRM free content available on iTunes shows that this idea is incorrect. So long as it is not available, or difficult to obtain, piracy will continue to grow. And so long as Apple has a prohibition against plugins like that, they are already at the mercy of a DRM free web experience if they want to publish to mobile.
The studios are between a rock and a hard place, with a risin
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting this: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2689135&cid=39140499 [slashdot.org]
So the DRM consists of some code(which they send you) that uses a key(which they send you) to decrypt an encrypted video(that they send you).
Without TPM/code signing, I'm not sure why they even bother.
If they implement it in Javascript the encryption algorithm is given too...
Yeah that sounds smart.
Re: (Score:3)
Not smart. Javascript is absolutely useless for anything security-related, because you're required to give the source code for your algorithm to the very people you're trying to hide that from. Even on simple web apps, javascript is useless for security; instead of doing all the secure stuff on the webserver and then feeding the computed results (with secret stuff eliminated) to the visitor's browser via HTML, you're giving all the data and source code to the visitor, so they can run it on their machine.
Re:So what is your suggestion then? (Score:4, Interesting)
browser pluggable executable objects (Score:5, Insightful)
browser pluggable executable objects --
Yeah that always sounds like a good idea.
*sigh*
I thought the whole idea of HTML5 was to get open framework where no unknown code was needed so we could get away from these monsters.
Re:browser pluggable executable objects (Score:5, Insightful)
So the DRM consists of some code(which they send you) that uses a key(which they send you) to decrypt an encrypted video(that they send you).
Without TPM/code signing, I'm not sure why they even bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and if you believe that TPM will work, I've got this bridge^W universal TPM module to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
but but but adhoc video codec downloading has *always* worked so well, in the past! NOBODY would be dumb enough to repeat that exact same scenario with plugins!
Re: (Score:2)
Misdirection ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, they'll eventually decide to outlaw open source browsers, since they're clearly designed to allow for copyright infringement.
Of course, that is exactly what the copyright lobby wants ... absolutely nothing will be allowed if it could even remotely be used to violate copyright.
This is good for Netflix and the people pushing this ... but it isn't good for the rest of us.
Impossible in open source is just impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
Compiled code is just very, very hard to read source code. Luckily, we've got these things called computers that can do all sorts of information processing, gathering millions of data points a second and sorting them for humans to interpret.
If it's impossible to implement securely in an open-source program, it's impossible to implement securely, period. There is nothing magical about machine instructions. A compiled program is just harder to interpret. For one person, out of the 7 billion on this planet. And then it's out there, forever and ever.
This entire debate is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of software.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's impossible to implement securely in an open-source program, it's impossible to implement securely, period. There is nothing magical about machine instructions. A compiled program is just harder to interpret. For one person, out of the 7 billion on this planet. And then it's out there, forever and ever.
Strong DRM usually has the problem that is gets harder to break, it also gets harder to make it work without problems for legitimate users. Therefore there are cases now where weak DRM is used, just strong enough not to overcome it by accident, and the DRM gives the rights holder strong legal rights. See Apple with the ridiculously weak DRM preventing to run MacOS X on non-Apple computer.
You could easily implement DRM in open source. It would of course be breakable, but it would be strong enough to give
Re: (Score:2)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't having the copy protection in hardware *not* help with an open source player? Once it's decrypted and funneled back to the player for playback, someone could rewrite the open source player to capture that output in its unencrypted form. Am I wrong?
Re:Misdirection ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analysis is close, but misses the key point.
copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware
That's where all this will end up. You won't be able to buy a computer without the DRM hardware installed, and it will be illegal/impossible to remove/alter.
Re: (Score:2)
you'll still get sued for your thoughts, because they feel that they own them. derivative works, etc.
And this is why Flash and Silverlight will survive (Score:5, Interesting)
All this HTML5 hype isn't going to change the fact that the studios are NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER going to support streaming of content on a format with no DRM option.
Re: (Score:2)
And?
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Re: (Score:2)
And?
So they'll be forced to write their own client applications to do the streaming, rather than banking on browser developers to do all that work AND support their (inevitably) failed DRM schemes for them.
Um, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You won't have plugins, but you'll have a slew of applications on your desktop. I find that far more preferable than having browser writers waste time, money, and effort implementing a failed scheme for the sake of the entertainment industry, especially when this will be impossible for open source browsers anyway.
But it won't be the studios that end up paying (Score:4, Interesting)
It won't be the studios worrying about streaming and DRM implementations. It will be services that want to implement different kinds of pricing model, maybe pay-per-view or a NetFlix-style flat rate subscription, which have contractual obligations to protect the content and will inevitably pass on the cost of meeting those obligations to their customers.
DRM is going to happen, on a wide scale, for the foreseeable future, and if it's used responsibly that's not necessarily a bad thing (because without it those new business models are unlikely to work commercially, yet many people apparently prefer to pay for their content in those ways). The only result of not standardising DRM for philosophical reasons will be introducing inefficiency into the supply chain, which will ultimately cost consumers more for no benefit or in the worst case make a business fail instead of offering a service that consumers would have enjoyed.
Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that's what they said about the music industry.
Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like music companies, right?
In the end, the market will win. If consumers won't buy DRM, then DRM won't exist. It's up to you; tell your friends. We won an amazing victory against the RIAA, now it's time to square off against the MPAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While what you said is true (at least for now, though I'm holding out hope for a something like what happened with iTunes and music), but it doesn't match with your title, which is quite incorrect. There are plenty of examples of non-Flash and non-Silverlight approaches getting studio support (iOS being a prime example, since it supports Netflix as well as downloads from the iTunes Store), but, as you point out, they all rely on DRM. Flash and Silverlight will die out over time, only to be replaced by somet
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The music industry didn't want that either, yet go figure, now MP3 is sold with no DRM.
The industry, in the end, cares about money. Make DRM unprofitable, and it'll go away, one way or another. Making it disappear is just a matter of putting up a decent opposition.
Locks (Score:2)
Dear Google, Microsoft, et al., the internet IS NOT YOURS. Take your locked down crap that way ----> /dev/null
Re: (Score:3)
Your freedom to choose means that you do not have the moral authority to dictate to other free people as to the manner in which they interact. I'm pretty sure that you dont use Netflix, so what fucking business is it of yours as to how Netflix delivers content? Its not your business at all, BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS NOT YOURS.
Re: (Score:3)
And I won't. But I'll also use all other avenues available: I'll make sure to be as much of a pain in the ass as possible to those who work against my interests. They try to use legislation, and standards and I'll make sure to extert the opposite pressure.
It's
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it will: the browser at the very least. And to make it effective instead of just pointless it'll eventually require hardware restrictions.
It's my business because even if I don't watch Netflix, a standard will ensure that my browser will have to implement it anyway. And I don't want to contribute a cent to that.
... that content makers demand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Browser makers have no obligation to help them perpetuate their broken business model. I think the standards committee should just say "No. In fact, let me think about that for a minute... Hell No." Because the internet's very raisin de etre is to share information even when the network is badly damaged, under hostile control, etc. We can't simply redesign it into a read only medium to serve ONE industry's interests, nor should we.
Browser makers: Just say no. Walk away. Let their content rot behind their own walls.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, technically we can, and that's their preferred option ... make all technology subservient to copyright.
I agree we shouldn't, but that won't stop them from trying to do it. Sony et al would happily outlaw the general purpose computer to make sure we were all running only industry approved devices which give them all of the control.
Re:... that content makers demand. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, technically we can, and that's their preferred option ... make all technology subservient to copyright.
Even if every browser maker on the planet suddenly co-opted to every demand by the entertainment industry, people would simply stop using newer web browsers. The demands of the industry and market are such that any initiative like that would insta-fail. That's why they've been slowly increasing the penalties, throwing up road blocks here and there, feigning here and there about what they're up to, negotiating backroom deals with other governments, and making high profile arrests all over the place. They can't win the war by swaying public opinion -- the public is stupid. Very stupid. Monumentally stupid... but not that stupid. And I say this knowing full well that whenever I say "Nobody can be that stupid" in this industry, an example comes along to prove me wrong. Every average everyday thing that even the lobotomized flatworms of the IT world use depends on the internet being a two-way communications medium. They can restrict, throttle, beat, manipulate, and mutilate it to the point that it barely resembles the internet you and I know... but they can't fundamentally erase what it is right now without segmenting the network off from the rest of the world, and spending a ludicrious amount of money to keep it "pure" according to their standards.
As long as two-way packet-based communication is possible on the chunk of wires, routers, and "tubes" known as the internet, Big Copyright will never have a complete victory. I mean, even if they run around with portable execution squads and electric chairs and are given full reign to do whatever they want, ala the Spanish Inquisition... they won't be able to get what they want.. and they'll be utterly oblitherated by the first person who creates a system of communication they can't control.
Call it the Hacker's Law -- there will always be a place for the free exchange of information. Somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you are saying, but it isn't really true. We can't stop copyright infringement with DRM; it's not theoretically possible; it is theoretically impossible.
The entire point of DRM is that, eventually, the encoded bits become decoded, and therefore are available for sniffing, at some point. That is true whether or not the actual DRM scheme itself is broken, which has happened (so far as I know) 100% of the times it has been attempted. If nothing else, then you can simply record the signal produced by
Re: (Score:3)
I think maybe the content makers should be forced to follow through with their claims. Back in the early days of cheap VCRs, they claimed that VCRs would put them out of business. We need to go back to that and hold them to their word, by forcing them to only show their movies in theaters, and not releasing anything on any other format for people to watch outside of official theaters. Let's see how that all works out for them.
Translation to english (Score:3)
Translation: "We're going to charge you more and blame more things on piracy."
Funny part is, the more they blame things on piracy and try to lock it down the more people will actually move to piracy in order to get what they want. It's completely counter productive.
NB4 Crackers (Score:3)
Microsoft following standards, don't make me laugh (Score:2)
The requirement for DRM on streaming video isn't likely to go away, however. If consensus can't be reached and no better approach emerges, there is a risk that some browser vendors will simply implement their own solutions outside of the standards process.
Since when did the big guys followed the standards anyway (IE html validation anyone!). maybe this is what we need ? It's not the first time some company, organization or someone didn't follow standards and his software got way more popular. I could state that mozilla wasn't standard but it did follow the rules way better than IE did with W3C.
Pluggable Module == Binary Blob (Score:2)
"It is designed to work with pluggable modules that implement the actual decryption mechanisms."
Pluggable Module == Binary Blob == content providers PWN your computer. They won't be content with anything short of that.
Easy fix (Score:2)
There's an easy fix for this: MS, Google, et al, can just stop producing content that people want to copy.
Take it from the audio tag (Score:2)
Content licenses for music have been pretty silly over the years. A standard license for even displaying lyrics requires that the website take basic measures to disable copy and paste. That said, there are many online radio stations on the net operating without DRM. Jango and Pandora come to mind. Then there are stations like Grooveshark that do try to obfuscate their stream. The irony here is that Grooveshark is operating in the gray area whereas Jango and Pandora are appropriately licensed.
Anyway, we'll s
Aw, gimme a break! (Score:2)
Screw whether it works or not... like I NEED another fucking plug-in/language/idiotic "standard" to add to my page-builds. Let's just add even more to the design/developer's plate... especially when it sounds like it's going to be another flash-in-the-pan, oops, that didn't work out either kind of solution.
Get your heads out of your asses, you morons, and stop heaping more crap on the pile. If you're going to do it, do it right the first time, not with MORE server calls, MORE code, MORE to break, and MORE
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Cannot be unseen warning (Score:4, Insightful)
Better idea: stop trying to stuff everything into web browsers. Just bring the mobile Netflix app to the desktop. They could dump Silverturd^H^H^H^Hlight and go with whatever format and encryption scheme gives Reed Hastings the biggest chubby.
What this is (Score:3)
DRM attacks the wrong end of the distribution chai (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said this before but it baffles me that the studios are so obsessed with forcing DRM on paying customers.
The kind of people that upload Hollywood movies is already capable and willing of breaking any DRM you can dream of since it is mathematically impossible to create unbreakable DRM. The kind of people who want to pay for content are exactly the kind that avoids downloading illegal copies, much less uploading. It creates enormous amounts of discomfort for paying customers in exchange of minimal discomfort for infringers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that'll really go over well with the open source crowd.
So what do you suggest? DRM is not going to go away any time soon, no matter how much you might wish it to. Implementing any kind of reasonably secure DRM will necessarily require some secret component, even if it's only in your platform hardware and accessible via an open API.
If open source browsers don't want to work within that environment, they will offer a limited experience to their users compared to closed source alternatives that adopt the technology. And that's fine if they and their users are both
Re: (Score:2)
the costs to produce content (movies, videogames, etc) needs to undergo a revolution in terms of production costs.
Great. Now you just need to convince all the actors, directors, writers, producers, gaffers, AD's, DP's, PA's, prop managers, production designers, cinematographers, lighting directors, script supervisors, best boys, assistants, craft services workers, agents, publicists--and everyone in the hundred or so related fields in Hollywood, Vancouver, London, Mumbai, Toronto, Bulgaria, and Beijing to start working for free and feeding their families on good will and rainbows.
Hey, Michael Bay, can you do Transforme