Corporations Just Quietly Changed How the Web Works (theoutline.com) 248
Adrianne Jeffries, a reporter at The Outline, writes on W3C's announcement from earlier this week: The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy. Some rights holders, like Ubisoft, have come around to the idea that DRM is counterproductive. Steve Jobs famously wrote about the inanity of DRM in 2007. But other rights holders, like Netflix, are doubling down. The prevailing winds at the consortium concluded that DRM is now a fact of life, and so it would be be better to at least make the experience a bit smoother for users. If the consortium didn't work with companies like Netflix, Berners-Lee wrote in a blog post, those companies would just stop delivering video over the web and force people into their own proprietary apps. The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers; it's like replacing one library with many stores that each only carry books for one publisher. "It is important to support EME as providing a relatively safe online environment in which to watch a movie, as well as the most convenient," Berners-Lee wrote, "and one which makes it a part of the interconnected discourse of humanity." Mozilla, the nonprofit that makes the browser Firefox, similarly held its nose and cooperated on the EME standard. "It doesn't strike the correct balance between protecting individual people and protecting digital content," it said in a blog post. "The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source, something that goes against Mozilla's fundamental approach. We very much want to see a different system. Unfortunately, Mozilla alone cannot change the industry on DRM at this point."
rot in hell TBL (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to try to exclude DRM is Mozilla, and unfortunately, if they do that, the users will switch to
Re:rot in hell TBL (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason I still use Mozilla instead of Chrome is the Menu Bar.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason I just switched to Chrome from Firefox is that FF recently did an update that broke 1Password. Not to mention Chrome generally is faster and smoother.
DRM is not open (Score:5, Insightful)
It's better to force companies to make their own sub-par player (with all the bugs and security flaws that come with it) rather than trying to give them first class status in the browser.
"Did you exchange
a walk on part in the war
for a leading role in a cage?"
Re: (Score:3)
DRM is not open. You can't have an 'interoperable' DRM standard, because its entire purpose is to stop things from being interoperable.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive like applications can be both proprietary and cross-platform, it's a standard way to ask browsers for the non-standard DRM modules the platform offers and how to pass data to them. So for example on Windows 10 you have PlayReady 3.0 which is Microsoft's latest DRM. With EME you'll talk to it the same way using Edge, Chrome, Firefox or any other browser that talks EME. Just like you can talk proprietary protocols over standard TCP/IP or SSL. But if your platform like Li
Re: (Score:2)
it's a standard way to ask browsers for the non-standard DRM modules the platform offers and how to pass data to them.
Calling that open is bullshit.
the browser is also trying to stay relevant in an app world.
The browser is trying to take over the app world. It doesn't need to be an app VM.
Re:DRM is not open (Score:5, Insightful)
The browser is trying to take over the app world. It doesn't need to be an app VM.
What browsers were designed for and used to excel at is information sharing. The more, the better. Filling people's brains.
Apps, on the other hand are not about sharing information, but condensing it and turning it into entertainment. Filling people's time.
Two very different goals.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling that open is bullshit.
Open only means documented (conforming to standards) and interoperable (not so legally encumbered that you can't actually use it.) It doesn't mean free or Free. That's why we have the distinct concept of Free Software (et al) as opposed to Open Standards, or Open Source. In that sense, the DRM plugin mechanism is open. However, its intent is poisonous, because the goal is to permit closed binary blobs whose goal is to restrict user freedom. On the gripping hand, the alternative is to not be able to consume
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds great to me. I won't use DRM'd content, but so what? If I did use it, surely I would want standardized browser delivery?
Also, it makes it easier for my browser to detect what the problem is, and give me a useful error message, instead of just what happens now and I just have a broken video player and I have to guess why.
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to force companies to make their own sub-par player
Technical standards are not an appropriate channel for pushing political objectives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: DRM is not open (Score:5, Insightful)
Properly-implemented DRM can have totally open control & ui software... it's just that historically, control-freak content owners and their enablers aren't content to merely prevent you from copying and redistributing their precious content, they ALSO want total control over the way you *consume* it & your viewing experience.
Copy PREVENTION is child's play. Any video subsystem created after Vista & Protected Video Path can prevent copying, because everything from key exchange to hdmi output is done in hardware. Every SoC used by Android & iOS has the same capability.
So, why does Google & Apple still fuck with your ability to watch videos on a rooted/jailbroken device? Because they don't JUST want to prevent you from copying the video, they also want to make sure you can't fast-forward over commercials (or play commercials in a subwindow while you do something else). If they could get away with forced-engagement ads (tracking eye movement & pausing the commercial if you weren't paying enough attention to it), they'd do it in an instant.
Copy prevention is impossible. (Score:2)
Re: Copy prevention is impossible. (Score:2)
Sure it is. With h.264 and AES implemented in silicon and the keys known only to the video chip, it's fairly straightforward for the chip to decompress a h.264 video stream, encrypt it with AES, and write it to the frame buffer... then at output time, read it back from ram, decrypt it, re-encrypt it with HDCP, and output it to the display. The CPU itself never has direct access to unencrypted video frames.
Yes, HDCP's master key has been compromised, but decrypting HDCP on the fly still requires dedicated ha
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is. With h.264 and AES implemented in silicon and the keys known only to the video chip, it's fairly straightforward for the chip to decompress a h.264 video stream, encrypt it with AES, and write it to the frame buffer... then at output time, read it back from ram, decrypt it, re-encrypt it with HDCP, and output it to the display.
Well, there goes my battery life on my mobile device.
Seriously, someone should reframe DRM as a climate change issue.
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth did this get rated "Insightful" on a supposedly tech-savvy forum?
Re: (Score:2)
DRM like SSL - yes please! (Score:2)
I'd be happy with DRM that worked like that. The DRM code is multi-platform open source, like SSH and SSL. I generate a key, submit it to them, they send me encrypted content. I can put it the key in any device I want. Including my copy of mencoder.
That system would be a lot more convenient, as well as being exactly as effective as any other.
Re: (Score:3)
Then let them make their own apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything needs to be accessed through a web browser. Seriously. I have trouble imagining why that was the solution in the first place. Let them make their own apps and when they fail to move eyeballs away from the web, let them come back and play nicely with the rest of us.
And if these apps don't fail and provide unique, worthwhile experiences that people are willing to pay for DRM or whatever scheme included, then that's the way it will be. We computer people are the minority here. Just because it may ruffle a few ideological and dogmatic feathers doesn't make the situation any worse than it already is.
Re:Then let them make their own apps (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is time to move on from W3 as it became damage.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they made an app, but it was also compatible with the web? Sort of like a web browser with an address bar and other stuff, but in addition to the functionality offered by traditional HTML/JS it also supported a handful of other protocols.
And then, a few of them could get together into some kind of forum and standardize a bit so that those other protocols could be shared. And then maybe they realize that they could also share the application too (since anyway the protocol is standardized) and ship it
Re:Then let them make their own apps (Score:5, Insightful)
The web hasn't changed here, your non-EME-compatible browser can still access stuff.
I was all set to do some moderation in this thread until I saw this. I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture. This isn't just about streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser. Pretty soon every website is going to have a DRM component to "protect their IP". That means ad-blockers, noscript, flashblock, firebug, and any other plugin that is used to modify the functionality, or display of a website, or controlling the loading of content from third parties is going to be worthless. You want to watch Netflix? You need our DRM, which excludes all that other stuff. Want to read your favorite news, tech, sports, entertainment, clickbait, or any other website? Same thing. The DRM plugin will force the full volume flash ads, malware-laden click-the-monkey crap served up by an ad network, and anything else the site wants down your throat.
This is going to turn the internet into cable TV. 47 gazillion channels, and it's all commercial filled crap.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just about streaming netflix and hulu in a web browser.
Or, from my point of view, this isn't about streaming Netflix or the like at all. I couldn't care less about whether a browser can do that. I care about the precedent being set in the standard, and what this rather severe shift in the priorities of the W3C means for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is. Ignore the crap. There's plenty of open web left, and there probably always will be.
Re:Then let them make their own apps (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to watch Netflix? You need our DRM, which excludes all that other stuff. Want to read your favorite news, tech, sports, entertainment, clickbait, or any other website? Same thing. The DRM plugin will force the full volume flash ads, malware-laden click-the-monkey crap served up by an ad network, and anything else the site wants down your throat.
There are already two WWWs, as far as I'm concerned. One is the one I can browse using Palemoon with noscript and ublock, and permitting only the things that the site actually needs to function (not including things which are there only to advertise to me and/or spy on me.) The other is the one that I have to dip into when I want to use some site that doesn't fit that description, where I just go ahead and use Chrome. Oddly, my bank is in the first (real) one. But so are all the sites I actually care about, like google and ebay and amazon and even netflix. They already have the option to not be part of that web, but they choose to stay on the side that doesn't alienate people like me who will just consume some other media. What makes you think that having another way to piss people off means they're all going to use it? I already don't give two shits about forbes or business insider.
Re: (Score:2)
Your concept of "every website" is weak and pathetic.
Know that there is also quality data out there.
You have got to be kidding me. (Score:2)
Not everything needs to be accessed through a web browser...Let them make their own apps and when they fail to move eyeballs away from the web, let them come back and play nicely with the rest of us.
Home PC sales ---if not in free fall --- can't be described as particularly healthy. While the Netflix app is installed on a gazillion cell phones, smart TVs, video game consoles, 4K Blu-Ray players, Roku set top boxes and god alone knows how many other toys and gadgets. Netflix has all the eyeballs anyone could ask for. The same is true for all the giants in media and marketing.
The big boys don't have play nice with the geek anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
So then why are the big boys so keen on getting this stuff into the browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Let them make their own apps
Making your own native application limits you to what Google, Apple, and Microsoft are willing to allow on their platforms. It also limits your potential user base to the users of one operating system unless you're willing to pay your developers five times as much to make the same thing for Windows, macOS, GNU/Linux, Android, and iOS.
small thinking (Score:2)
It's still proprietary apps. Nothing accomplished. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's happening anyway. It's just that the "proprietary apps" are called EME modules or drivers or whatever.
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time. (Because every service needs its own.)
That other 10% is going to keep us all working full time. Job security for anyone who makes money on when users lose. We'll be like construction contractors in a full-year hurricane season. The more broken windows, the better.
Fuckwits. We all need to be running browsers such that everyone can see user agent strings where they know this DRM fiasco isn't implemented. The server logs themselves need to say "you're going to lose money on this customer if you require EME, because they're just going to switch to pirating in order to be able to view the content."
Re: (Score:2)
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn" and it'll be a normal and "legit" thing for the user to do, 90% of the time.
I'm not particularly happy about the EME spec begin adopted. I really hate DRM for a wide variety of reasons. However, I don't think the scenario you paint is going to happen. Web browsers today are intensely focused on protecting users from malware, and if EME modules start to become used as malware vehicles, you'll very, very quickly see browsers implementing EME module whitelists and similar countermeasures.
No, the real problem is that all of the content on the web will begin using DRM, with one of the
Re: (Score:2)
They're also going to be awesome for spreading malware. Instead of "install this CODEC to watch this porn" it's "install this EME module to watch this porn"
Firefox puts CDMs in a fairly strict sandbox, and most sites will end up using Google Widevine anyway.
It is a very sad day indeed (Score:2)
I wish more people would pay attention to what a serious issue this is. Average people just don't get it. They would be just as happy with the old, proprietary AOL client if it gave them access to all the same content they currently consume. They neither know nor care that it is open. It's a dark age indeed.
Like this will matter (Score:2)
The pirates will have the browser on their desktop, the closed source portions will be cracked before you can say boo.
The hackers get a mildly amusing challenge. The corps get nothing because they were too stupid to know what they should want, and everybody else has a screwed up browser.
Yay.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, the primary issue the corporations are concerned with isn't piracy, it's control of the distribution channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I wasn't commenting on that, I was only commenting on what the primary issue for the corps is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they control the distribution channel of their content. The rest of us can create and enjoy our content without them.
Well, until the very hardware you use refuses to obey *your* wishes and forbids any content/software that isn't DRM-enabled & encrypted to their standards, effectively killing indie creators' ability to create and distribute their works unless the proper Danegeld is paid.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of us can create and enjoy our content without [incumbent publishers].
Until "the rest of us" get takedown notices for having created "our content" that is allegedly accidentally too similar to their works.
Life isn’t perfect (Score:4, Interesting)
I am sorry that the W3C had to approve DRM. However most of the arguments against it are rather lame. Most people just want to watch their movie. They don’t want to copy it or use it unfairly. But the thing with digital media is if it is too easy to copy and share. That is what will happen. Old anolgies with VCR do not apply because that is an Analog copy so every copy is degraded. While every copy of digital data is the same. And now with high speed networking it is rather efficient to share previously too much info. Even weak DRM is enough to stop most people and going to court it is easy to prove malicious intent.
Does it goes against Open Source Standards? Yes it does. However the world doesn’t rotate around open source standards.
If you want to get rid of it you will need to blacklist all the sites that use it. And properly boycott the DRM material. This doesn’t mean pirating the content. But going without it in terms of protest. Pirating the content will only show there is a demand for their product and double down on the DRM to fight piracy more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the world doesn’t rotate around open source standards
It kind of does actually. Are you aware just how much open source software is running everything in the world right now? Most of the web and backend Internet services have tons of open source dependencies that the end user is unaware of, but they're there, happily chugging along moving all the world's data.
Re:Life isn’t perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry that the W3C had to approve DRM.
I think your premise is wrong here -- they didn't have to approve the EME. They wanted to.
Re:Life isn’t perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not watching the movie. Yes, DRM is here to stay regardless as Hollywood won't release media without it and that is not negotiable.
What bothers me is people changing standards at a whim to enrich corporations without the consequences. Another poster for example mentioned malware. THIS IS AWESOME FOR RANSOMWARE. No Anti virus product in the world can scan for it as the DRM protects it's contents from being viewed or scanned.
You just go to pornhub.com or xhamster and an infected h.264 codec with executable code embedded in runs on unchecked as your systems security is prevented from stopping it by DRM.
New Malware can use HTML 5 with EME embedded in for the payload and won't be able to be stopped or scanned or researched either. A nightmare is an understatement. What's next? Facebook might use EME version 2 which bans 'view page source' to protect it's intellectual copyright. Javascript will be undebugable next. More malware can come in as a result and people will not know how the web works anymore as you can't debug or view javascript or HTML 5 anymore.
Any corporation can come in and buy it's seat and voting right to protect it's self interests of more profit without consideration from anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine going to slashdot a year from now and you will see ear deafening ads that ublock can't undo thanks to EME DRM videos covering half the comment section. Boy I can't wait even even if there is no malware problem.
Part of me now thinks advertisers did this to avoid being blocked under the secret guise of DRM EME
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However the world doesn’t rotate around open source standards.
The world would be a better place if it did.
And there are those of us who want the world to be a better place.
Re:Life isn’t perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
The DRM plugin will force the full volume flash ads, and malware-laden click-the-monkey crap served up by an ad network. Sites will become channels, with their DRM required to view the content; ads, videos, and all. You're non-EME browser will simply display a message that it's not compatible with the site.
Re: (Score:2)
It...doesn't? EME is only for streaming media. The "M" is for "media".
Unless an adblocker developer somehow figured out a way to not load content inside an <audio> or <video> tag
Re: (Score:2)
It...doesn't? EME is only for streaming media. The "M" is for "media".
Unless an adblocker developer somehow figured out a way to not load content inside an <audio> or <video> tag until the user clicked on it. But such a thing would, obviously, be witchcraft.
You think EME version 2.0 won't be able to encrypt source code next?
Also advertisers already use h.264 and flash so EME will make flashblock and adblock plus worthless with full blown ads in ear deafening audio to be the norm once again with no way to turn this off.
Re:Life isn't perfect (Score:2)
You think EME version 2.0 won't be able to encrypt source code next?
This guy gets it. Entire sites will be considered copyrighted media. Don't load the plugin? All you get is "Sorry, your browser is not compatible with this site." with some links to download Firefox, Chrome, and IE.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry that the W3C had to approve DRM. However most of the arguments against it are rather lame. Most people just want to watch their movie. They donâ(TM)t want to copy it or use it unfairly.
But the thing with digital media is if it is too easy to copy and share. That is what will happen.
The problem seems to me to be obvious. It's simply a reflection of lack of legitimacy in state's laws governing use of IP. Corporations over many decades have used their leverage to enact and maintain laws a sufficient number of people have no problem willingly disregarding with impunity.
Technological solutions to political problems especially one involving pointless measures easily circumvented have a proven track record of failure.
That is what will happen. Old anolgies with VCR do not apply because that is an Analog copy so every copy is degraded. While every copy of digital data is the same.
Nobody doing the copying or watching of VHS tapes cared. The concept of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you You seem to be operating under the presumption that EME (and all DRM) is designed to stop piracy. It isn't.
Read Ian Hickson (author of html5 spec) on this:
https://plus.google.com/+IanHi... [google.com]
"The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.
The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices."
He makes a compelling point.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get rid of it you will need to blacklist all the sites that use it. And properly boycott the DRM material. This doesnâ(TM)t mean pirating the content. But going without it in terms of protest. Pirating the content will only show there is a demand for their product and double down on the DRM to fight piracy more.
Corporations only respond when you hit them in the wallet. They don't have balls, or morals, only bank accounts. If you don't pay for the media, they're not counting it as a sale. And here in the real world of things which are actually happening, corporations are trying to find ways to reach users who commonly violate copyright and get a piece of those potential sales. If you just don't consume the media at all, the only message you send is that you don't matter — there's nothing they can do to get yo
Re: (Score:2)
If I were trying to reach people who commonly violate copyright, I wouldn't add more reasons for them to prefer the cracked copy over the original.
They're not going to give up on DRM unless it becomes illegal. But they are trying to make access easier. The evidence shows that you can get a significant percentage of these potential sales just by making it easy for people to give you their money, and play your media. The percentage of people that cares about DRM when it's not actively getting in their way is very small.
I don't get it (Score:2)
Why are these companies obsessed with DRM in browser? I can still do an video and audio capture on my screen as I please, re-encode, and record.
This does not help anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Hollywood actually think it will end all piracy tomorrow. Bahaha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they are closing that hole with Windows PlayReady. Now the OS explicitly controls what content can and cannot be recorded.
Until Windows PlayReady can interface directly with the brain, bypassing a screen and speakers, the content can still be copied.
How good quality depends on the equipment used. By capturing a 1080p display with a 2160p camera and condensing it back to 1080, the quallity is indistinguishable from the real thing. Similar for sound - de-amping a speaker signal and feeding it to a mixer, you get a copy that you can't tell the original from a first-generation copy.
In other words, it stops the average home user, but does nothing to stop the real pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. The point isn't what can or can't be done with the browser. The point is that this is another step in the transformation of the HTML standard away from being one for everybody and toward being one for the big corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he has other things to do in the Internet that requires it to be DRM free (like surfing safely). While the only point he is seeing for these corporations is easily bypassed.
"best stuff on the Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
The "best stuff on the Internet" isn't movies and TV. Those can be gotten lots of different ways, or can be left, altogether. It's just stupid corporate entertainment crap, by and large.
The "best stuff on the Internet" in my opinion, is still there, and isn't going to be effected in any way by DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
The "best stuff on the Internet" isn't movies and TV.
So true.
Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS:
The idea that the best stuff on the internet will be hidden behind walls in apps rather than accessible through any browser is the mortal fear for open web lovers
This argument makes no sense. Essentially, the argument is that it's better to have the best stuff on the internet hidden behind walls in the browser rather than hidden behind walls in apps.
Either way, it's hidden behind walls -- so from my point of view, it's a distinction without a difference.
But I will confess, I don't think this idea that the browser should be a one-stop portal to everything on the internet is a good one. I think that it pretty much guarantees that the utility of the various services is reduced.
I think email and file servers are a good example of what I mean.
DRM doesn't work (Score:2)
What can be viewed or listened to can be re-recorded and freed of DRM. DRM is just a massive inconvenience to legit users, but nothing that'll stop me and all the other freeloaders.
HTML Object tag (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They already had the power in a number of different ways. That fact is one of the arguments against the EME: the only real effect the EME has is to bless the idea of DRM.
I find that I do not need this "premium" content (Score:2)
The only things I watch (a very small number of TV series) are not available were I live anyways, just horrible dubbed versions later. So I download them, which is legally tolerated here. For the rest: You DRM, I do not watch. That is far worse for you than for me. Make me a decent legal offer and you _will_ get my money. Decent includes that I can store this locally in as many copies as I want, can play it on Linux and the quality of sound and image is good. Do not make that offer and I will certainly not
Insanity! (Score:2)
The trouble with DRM is that it's sort of ineffective. It tends to make things inconvenient for people who legitimately bought a song or movie while failing to stop piracy.
Glad someone is learning, finally.
Yet,
The content providers require that a key part of the system be closed source,
You still want to go down this road? Knowing all too well, it's not going to work. It's not going to stop piracy. It's going to irritate legitimate customers. And the Open Source community will not touch proprietary stuff.
Must this insanity continue? It's all wrapped into one post! They know it's stupid and ineffective, but they're going ahead with it anyway? I'd rather they all just make their own stupid proprietary apps and die in a corner. Stop infecting the
Are these companies actually negatively impacted? (Score:2)
The DMCA regulation like most only is "national" laws.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on operate in many countries where such regulation is invalid.
Sure, they cannot have US researchers or other researchers who live in countries where DMCA matter do reverse engineering, but what if they hire a group of researchers in lets say Germany or India? They can continue business as usual, or am I wrong?
Or how does this regulation impact people in countries not covered by DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. In many nations, it doesn't affect things at all. In many, it does (a nation may not have a DMCA-type law itself, but may be obligated by treaty to help the US enforce the DMCA).
Your point is a great one, though. People seem to have forgotten one of that primary effects of the old US law that classified strong encryption as munitions for export purposes: the US was not where most serious crypto research took place, and fell behind in the crypto race.
I give it two months (Score:2)
go back to Flash (Score:3, Interesting)
I was never a fan of Flash and I'm glad that HTML5 has taken its place. However, this suggestion does seem both appropriate and viable to me. If the vendors want this level of brokenness, they can work on Flash until it works. Technology that makes things break intentionally is not a useful part of a web standard. The only likely result is that people who have truly paid will still not get their content. Shocker. Use Shockwave Flash if you want to attempt to make a system like this.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even need to go back to flash. They could do it entirely with Javascript. Heck, there have even been at least one implementation of a flash player itself in Javascript.
Not really a change... (Score:3)
There's a lot wrong with the headline.
The alternative to EME isn't no DRM; it's Adobe Flash. Which we've had, and suffered with, for a very long time. EME standardizes, so some degree, DRM so that we can dump Flash.
Of the EME-producers, it's Apple that's the evil one... regardless of using Flash or using a non-Apple EME... such as Widevine in Chrome... you cannot detect HDCP; Apple does not document that and yet uses it in their Fairplay CDM. So neither Flash or Widevine in Chrome can enforce HDMI per the OPL, and yet the Safari Fairplay EME CDM can, meaning you need to go full Apple to see HD on an external monitor unless a toughened custom viewer is used.
EME doesn't really freeze out other browsers either. Firefox has supported Widevine for years. Mostly what this does is allow us to dump the enormous vulnerability surface of Flash.
But of course "evil corporations are corrupting the internet" does SOUND better than "EME helps you migrate from Flash."
We brought this upon ourselves (Score:2)
Richard Stallman on Tim Berners-Lee (Score:2)
The fact that he's a knight means he was of service to the empire. And now he's being of service to another empire...What's happening here is that Berners-Lee and Jeff Jaffee have convinced themselves that by making this a standard, they will make the injustice of DRM smoother and less annoying in minor ways. And they've convinced themselves that that's the purpose of their lives...
He should handle it by saying no. But he can't really. And the reason is he set up an organization which is controlled by the businesses that want to put in the most money... By structuring it so it's controlled by the businesses, they've structured it so it wouldn't defend us from those businesses.
He is right, and TBL is an evil asshole destroying what he helped to create (he didn't create it alone like people like to say).
"Richard Stallman" - Lunduke Hour - Apr 14, 2017 [youtube.com] the interview.
Why not destroy the web? (Score:2)
I mean what harm is there in removing it? It is not like, for instance, destroying a cities water supply. Do we really need it?
Good luck taking down bittorrent. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Mozilla is being bribed to cripple their browser.
No, Firefox doesn't have nearly enough market share to be worth bribing. Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome.
Now corporations will be able to block out alternatives like Pale Moon due to the DRM being entrenched in Mozilla.
I'm not sure what you mean here... Pale Moon could, if it wanted, implement EME as well. I hope it doesn't, but it could.
Re: (Score:2)
"Mozilla wants Firefox to be king of the browsers again, and thinks that the way to do that is to become Chrome"
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Firefox and Chrome. The interface does look similar (everybody 'copies' everybody) but Firefox also lets me customize it way beyond what chrome allows, and I don't have to add a third toolbar for my bookmarks.
Firefox allows far less customization than it used to (that's why extensions like Classic Theme Restorer are necessary -- and even those will stop working with 57). Firefox has not become a complete Chrome clone yet, but every release that's happened in the past couple of years has taken another step in that direction. That's why I believe being a Chrome clone is an overt design goal.
Re: Mozilla could of listened to its users. (Score:2)
The "social justice" hypocrites who run Mozilla sure do love licking capitalist boots.
Re: (Score:2)
Wfooff!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather just avoid that content entirely, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not less restrictive, it's just been given a blessing by the larger browser community and plugged in to our previously (relatively) open communication system that was called the World Wide Web. The fact that this was rammed in without the consensus of the W3C body says just how broken of a concept it was. (For those of you who don't know, the W3C is a "consensus" body per its charter, which means that either all or the vast majority of members agree with a proposal, not a majority rules body where 50
But 50% +1 is what happened here. (Score:2)
Corporate members said yes. They stacked it until they had 50%. Develpers and users said no. The W3C said, 'Corporate members aren't going to compromise, so we'll ratify it anyway. Sorry angry (real) majority.
Are there any glowing-white-hats with ion hammers that will promise to blast any site using this protocol off the internet until they stop?
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny...
That statement from Mozilla was the one that made me realize that Mozilla was no longer the organization that I knew and loved. It also marked the moment when I began to seriously think that the day was coming when Firefox would no longer meet my needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. Firefox added EME support quite a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's hoping a '2nd Net', overlaid within the current framework, and without this bullshit starts up.
There are a number of such efforts right now. Probably the best known of these is freenet.org.
Re: (Score:2)
like locks, it only keeps honest people out.
People are fond of this saying, but it's not now, nor has it ever been, true, or at least not in the sense it's usually intended (it is true in the sense that no lock is impenetrable).
The purpose of locks (physical or digital) is to increase the effort required to gain unauthorized entry. Locks keep out more than just honest people -- they also keep out criminals unwilling or unable to expend the required resources to break them.
Essentially, it's using economics as a self-defense measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why doesn't Netflix show its own works without DRM and others' works with DRM?
Re: (Score:2)