Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Proposed Video Copy Protection Scheme For HTML5 Raises W3C Ire

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the have-you-have-your-ire-checked-lately? dept.

The Internet 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140421)

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.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140467)

Any provider which refuses to enter the market without the presence of the impossible should die off.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (0, Troll)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140689)

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.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (2, Funny)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140797)

Jesus fucking Christ, shill much?

You paycheck form the MPAA is ready now, please come to window 5. Thank you.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

visualight (468005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140847)

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? (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140479)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (0, Flamebait)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140527)

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."

Or, they have backbone and are willing to pay some for their entertainment. Don't want it on your computer? Then go see it in movies or be without it.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140805)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (-1)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140953)

(downloads aren't illegal).

Actually, in many countries it is now. Before only uploading was illegal, but many countries have changed downloading to be illegal too. While you may not agree with that, please don't spread bullshit as someone that doesn't know laws might get himself in trouble because of your actions.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (-1, Troll)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140851)

Why don't you go fuck yourself, you asshole MPAA shill. You're not welcome here.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140657)

What does it matter to you if streaming content is encrypted or not pray tell? This isn't content you own, you are subscribing to a service.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140715)

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? (1, Flamebait)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140751)

No, it's more like a technician's trying to install your cable and you're screaming about them trying to rape your wife. It's not nearly as invasive as you're saying, and if you don't want it you can just choose to not use their service.

re: analogies and reality (5, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140899)

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? (-1)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140763)

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.

How are they forcing you to this? Are they holding gun against your head?

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140887)

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? (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140867)

Er, no it isn't. You are not forced to use the service, but if you do you abide by the terms and conditions of usage. The encryption is there to stop people from ripping off the content in ways the service does not permit, possibly for contractual reasons with the content providers.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140943)

Er, no it isn't. You are not forced to use the service, but if you do you abide by the terms and conditions of usage

I object to the enforcement technology itself existing. Whether the service is something I want to use or not is another matter entirely.

The encryption is there to stop people from ripping off the content in ways the service does not permit, possibly for contractual reasons with the content providers.

I don't really care

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140855)

The fact that if I publish a method of decrypting that stream, or even publish links to descriptions of such methods, I can be sued. No thank you, I may not have any say over blatantly unconstitutional laws but I can refuse to pay for my rights to be trampled.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140877)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140739)

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? (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140883)

Except that in order to decrypt the information and let me enjoy it, they need to hide the decryption key somewhere. Somewhere that they are going to try to program my computer to make inaccessible to me, and should I find a way to defeat that, I cannot tell anyone else about without facing lawsuits.

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140483)

Implement it in JS.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140523)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140735)

Unless you get the algorithm in the form of a very secure FPGA then no other method of delivery is going to be significantly more secure than implementing it in JS.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140839)

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. That's probably part of the reason Microsoft tried to push the horrible ActiveX back in the early days of the web, because at least there you were giving visitors compiled machine code to run, which is much, much harder to reverse-engineer than minified Javascript (of course, AX was a failure because 1) it only worked on x86-32 machines running Windows/IE, and 2) it wasn't sandboxed and had full access to the machine resources, so it was easy for a malicious website to run malware on visitors' computers).

Even this HTML5 copy-protection proposal doesn't make that much sense; it seems like the only way it'd work is to use closed-source compiled plugins to decrypt the video while viewing. That's basically just another form of DRM, and is wide open to reverse engineering; all someone has to do is make a wrapper for the plugin which saves the decrypted video data to disk, and then they can post the decrypted video to BitTorrent for everyone to share.

These people just don't get it: software DRM simply doesn't work. You can't give someone a locked item, and the key to that lock, and then physically restrict how they use that item, it's just not possible. These schemes will make copying more difficult, but not much because it just takes one person to write the wrapper I mentioned before and post that, and then anyone with a slight bit of technical knowledge can download that and use it to decrypt downloaded video, and post that worldwide for everyone with little or no technical knowledge to download for free. The only way to really make things hard is with hardware DRM (which is basically what the satellite TV providers have done for years), but they tried that and it didn't fly because low-margin commodity PC makers don't want to add an extra cost item to their machines that customers don't want, and aren't going to bother unless they're forced to do so.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140505)

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.

Some providers want to offer enjoyable HTML5 DRM free video content. Other providers will struggle in a market where they want to force DRM down the throats of their users without HTML5 support. Let's let the users decide if they want to continue to view DRM content from providers which use Flash and Silverlight.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140775)

Doesn't work, unfortunately. The same copyright cartel controls the distribution rights for most of what people want to watch. You can't set up a new streaming service without agreeing to the conditions that they require and that currently means Silverlight (not even Flash anymore).

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140511)

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.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (0, Troll)

Intelligenta (2568347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140561)

And the internet is for unlocked content.

They should stop trying to break the internet and go somewhere else where they can be happy.

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?

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (2)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140697)

> 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 my hardware and my data not be mine. That is where the idea of "locked" is broken. It means my stuff must not be mine and I am sorry it does not work that way. My stuff, my data. They can take their "locks" somewhere else.

As all digital information is encoded in some form often many many times over, a digital "lock" is mostly an oxymoron.
Digital "locks" are simply an additional encoding step that you have not yet been informed of the decoding method for.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140825)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140741)

Not any more ironic than the position that governments shouldn't limit speech

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140903)

We, those who built, maintain and understand the internet, say so.

Keep using Flash (4, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140545)

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:Keep using Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140585)

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.

Never post about DRM again. That is so amazingly wrong I can't even begin to pick my jaw up off the floor.

Re:Keep using Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140627)

Care to explain or are you just here to flame away anonymously?

Re:Keep using Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140691)

It's not really flaming to suggest to someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about, that they STFU instead of embarassing themselves and misinforming others.

Or has "flame" been redefined to mean "something that makes me feel bad"?

Re:Keep using Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140681)

So you're implying that you *can* have a fully open source operating system and web-browser that the user compiles themselves, that provably prevents them from saving a perfect digital copy of the DRM-enabled video stream??? eh?

No. You're required to have either a hardware or software component that the user has no control over.

And no, public key magic doesn't apply here.

If user is given the key to decrypt the stream, then they have the ability to save and make copies of the stream. So yah... you can't do that "hide the decryption key" without having some obscurity... where you hide it from the user on the user's own machine.

Any system that does it is either non-public, (locked hardware), or hides the key via security by obscurity.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (5, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140611)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140703)

Yeah, how's that working out so far? You are speaking completely out of your ass.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140927)

What, seriously? It's going pretty well. Although I was shocked to see it happen, consumers won the DRM fight against music companies.

Re:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140719)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140723)

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:So what is your suggestion then? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140773)

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)

browser pluggable executable objects (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140435)

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 (5, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140499)

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:browser pluggable executable objects (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140613)

Oh, and if you believe that TPM will work, I've got this bridge^W universal TPM module to sell you.

Re:browser pluggable executable objects (1)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140509)

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:browser pluggable executable objects (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140849)

Reminds me of... I don't know... ActiveX hell.

Misdirection ... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140437)

Netflix's Mark Watson responded to the message and acknowledged that strong copy protection can't be implemented in an open source Web browser. He deflected the issue by saying that copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware, and that such hardware can be used by open source browsers.

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.

Re:Misdirection ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140471)

I guess I'll have to live without glasses or a hearing aid in my old age, as both of those obviously can be used to for copyright infringement. :/

Re:Misdirection ... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140843)

you'll still get sued for your thoughts, because they feel that they own them. derivative works, etc.

Impossible in open source is just impossible (5, Interesting)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140571)

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:Impossible in open source is just impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140727)

There is a small caveat: compiled code can be "protected" against tampering/bypass by currently existing mechanisms (like key verification) that can be embedded in the PC hardware. This is much harder to do with generic open source code.

So yes, compiled code isn't inherently safer than source code, but it can be more easily made resistent to change.

Re:Impossible in open source is just impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140785)

Yeah, but Mark Watson wasn't talking about software, he was talking about hardware. For example, if your GPU has built-in DRM and can decode and display an encrypted stream then it doesn't matter what the software does. It's not getting the decrypted data.

Re:Impossible in open source is just impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140941)

Except it has to be displayed...

Re:Impossible in open source is just impossible (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140837)

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 the copyright holder the additional legal protection.

Re:Misdirection ... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140747)

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 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140817)

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?

It assumes that there is a "clear path" in hardware between the decription and the output. It would mean the browser wouldn't have the decripted content back to show, the browser would just deliver the encrypted content to the hardware and it would do the rest. Easier said than done, but not impossible.

Re:Misdirection ... (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140929)

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.

And this is why Flash and Silverlight will survive (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140457)

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:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140491)

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:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140565)

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:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140645)

I don't really want a netflix plugin, a hulu plugin and a bank plugin. I kind of get the feeling most slashdotters would agree it's much better to have one plugin that runs on multiple platforms then a mess of single use plugins with widely varying platform support. Or even better, have a single interopable standard that makes browser plugins redundant.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140733)

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 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140737)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140575)

All because some other greedy fraudsters in the past suckered them into believing that DRM is technically possible.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (3, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140593)

Yeah, that's what they said about the music industry.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (3, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140623)

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:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140749)

We won no DRM in music we purchase. There is still DRM in music you rent through subscription services, and for good reason. In the same line, there ought to exist DRM for services that stream video content like Netflix and Hulu.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140647)

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 something else that can implement the DRM they want.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140683)

All this Flash and Sliverlight hype isn't going to change the fact that I am NOT NOW, NOT EVER, NEVER going to support streaming of content on a format with any DRM option.

Flash is dying. People won't install it only to be able to watch DRM infested videos. Even if they did it, I will happily live with Theora and WebM in HTML5 without infesting *my* box with Digital Restrictions Management.

Re:And this is why Flash and Silverlight will surv (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140765)

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.

So their solution (1)

shikitohno (2559719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140465)

For making this work in open source browsers is to use hardware with closed binary-blobs in charge of implementing it? Yeah that'll really go over well with the open source crowd. It totally doesn't defeat the purpose... Seems like a pretty bad way to get what they want. I'd like to be able to get Netflix streaming on my linux machines, but not with this sort of half-baked concept.

Re:So their solution (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140873)

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 happy to accept that experience because of a personal choice that keeping things open is a better philosophy.

Locks (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140469)

Dear Google, Microsoft, et al., the internet IS NOT YOURS. Take your locked down crap that way ----> /dev/null

Re:Locks (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140599)

Dear Wowsers. The internet IS NOT YOURS EITHER. Don't like a protocol, file format, or DRM scheme? DONT USE IT.

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:Locks (2)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140815)

Dear Wowsers. The internet IS NOT YOURS EITHER. Don't like a protocol, file format, or DRM scheme? DONT USE IT.

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.

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.

It's an attempt to screw with my hardware and software, which is very much my business.

Re:Locks (1)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140841)

But, you know, we have been making all that progress in HTML5 and CSS3, to avoid Flash and proprietary options, to end up having more of the same? No, thanks! The manner of interaction should be W3C's responsibility, in an open way, and open to open suggestions.

Re:Locks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140949)

Dear Wowsers,

The Internet is not yours either, but if you leave us and the millions of people who enjoy our content alone, then none of this will affect you anyway.

Thanks,

The people who actually make the content

PS: If you want our content but not locked down so you can do things you aren't supposed to with it, please take the money you were never going to give us anyway because you're just another worthless pirate that way ----> /dev/null

... that content makers demand. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140487)

Solution: If you don't want your content on the internet, it's not like anyone's forcing you to put it there. You can keep it hidden in vaults deep within the mountains, only accessible with an armed guard who takes everything resembling technology from you, leads you down a long corridor, where you can watch Teh Valued Contentz.

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:... that content makers demand. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140517)

We can't simply redesign it into a read only medium to serve ONE industry's interests, nor should we.

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. (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140695)

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:... that content makers demand. (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140731)

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 your display or your speakers.

But that, I think, is a secondary argument. The primary argument, the one most compelling, is no, screw you, don't make it harder to watch your movies than it needs to be, I won't pay for that, and nobody should help you make that happen. That's the argument I find sufficient and compelling.

Re:... that content makers demand. (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140889)

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.

Re:... that content makers demand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140917)

Actually, they can't keep it in the vault deep within the mountains because other people have put their content on the internet for them in the form of torrents and other file sharing mechanisms before that. So they never planned on putting their content on the internet but were forced to by people who broke copyright law (at least in the US, your local laws may vary).

Translation to english (2)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140507)

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 (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140535)

Play video in browser while running Fraps. There I bypassed this first. While the quality isn't that great it is a way to essentially moot what they are doing.

Microsoft following standards, don't make me laugh (2)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140567)

Ryan Paul wrote

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.

yeah but (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140577)

at what point do stream rippers start giving a fuck about this? i can record audio or video of anything happening on my screen. i could even use tutorial-building software to do it, and that's legit software. slingcatcher (of slingbox fame) already blocks relaying of video sources it errantly deems protected and we don't even have this crazy shit in effect yet. cut off your nose to spite your face, who cares? there is always a way around. does anyone else think this sounds a lot like the retarded war on drugs?

DRM video avoids the real issue.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140605)

... the costs to produce content (movies, videogames, etc) needs to undergo a revolution in terms of production costs. This heavy handed DRM is all about the perception of risks.

Re:DRM video avoids the real issue.. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140945)

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 Transformers 3 for nothing and give it to us for free, please? Come on, we know you can do it!

Pluggable Module == Binary Blob (1)

jdogalt (961241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140655)

"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 (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140673)

There's an easy fix for this: MS, Google, et al, can just stop producing content that people want to copy.

Key based? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39140679)

generic key-based content decryption system

Yeah, that worked SO well for Sony.

Take it from the audio tag (2)

Downchuck (1333195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140787)

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 see where things go. Netflix is sending out a stream and stuck with Silverlight because of their agreements. Hulu is also sending out a stream, but just doing it over Flash. Netflix is closer to a standard model, using HTTP requests for their stream, but uses Silverlight because it has some media expiration features in the packaging format. It's all silly stuff, but once they use a model, it's a hard sale for them to back out of it. Breach of contract and all those kinds of words would be thrown around.

At this point, I'd say Netflix and Hulu are stuck. Lets see what Comcast does. At some point, an online service will pop up using HTML5. Youtube is doing it already with music videos and the like. So that's one win. No luck on movies yet.

Time to kill Hollywood ? (1)

einar.petersen (1178307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140789)

If you're tired of the old dinosaurs then get going. Here's part of the solution: http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html [ycombinator.com] From their page: How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What's going to kill movies and TV is what's already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?

Aw, gimme a break! (1)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140871)

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 friggin' reins being tightened on our use and design.

In case you didn't get it, I've just about lost it with these so-called "standards". Fucking wankers.

Not copy protection (5, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140875)

Guys, can we all make an effort to start calling it what it really is?

Copy restriction.

The word "protection" was chosen by proponents to steer the debate on whether or not the practice is acceptable.

Frankly, I think it would be appropriate to offer a choice to content vendors: either use DRM/copy restriction, or receive the force of law in protection of your copyright. Not both. And, it would make sense; copyright is an exchange of limited monopoly, so if content is encrypted, they're not holding up their end of the bargain. Who's to say the key will be around when the copyright expires?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?