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!

Reject DRM and You Risk Walling Off Parts of the Web, Says W3C Chief

timothy posted about a year ago | from the interesting-way-to-think-about-it dept.

DRM 433

An anonymous reader writes "Web technologies need to support DRM-protected media to reduce the risk of parts of the web being walled off, the chief executive of the web standards body W3C has told ZDNet. Dr Jeff Jaffe, CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium, says proposals to provide a hook for DRM-protected media within HTML, via Encrypted Media Extensions, are necessary to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy."

cancel ×

433 comments

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

Idiots (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#44126045)

How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed. I'll be there's a copy on Pirate Bay. They seem to be under the impression that each individual pirate has to crack their weird schemes.

Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | about a year ago | (#44126109)

Summed up better this way.

If you reject DRM, you "risk" walling off parts of the Web.

If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126195)

I wish I had mod points; imnsho you are correct.

Re:Idiots (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44126227)

If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.

Since there already is DRM on the web, I think we can all agree that the W3C's proposal will not change the "walled-offness" of the web.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44126519)

That works both ways.

The fact that we already have DRM on the web without that DRM being embedded in the web standards also means that they don't need to be embedded in the web standards.

Companies that are petulant about their content on the web can just continue to do what they've always been doing.

There's no reason to change anything to to subvert the notion of open standards.

In truth, this beaurocrat is irrelevant. Worst possible thing for one of them.

Re:Idiots (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44126599)

There's no reason to change anything to to subvert the notion of open standards.

Keeping closed-standards for DRM integration helps open standards? WTF? I think that's enough Slashdot for you for today.

Re:Idiots (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44126261)

we should just call these the netflix extensions. since they have google and ms on board and both have seemingly already implemented it, discussing about it is pretty meaningless. they wanted some new plugin hooks and they got them.

Re:Idiots (0)

Richard M Stalman (2965637) | about a year ago | (#44126327)

I have to say this about Dr Jeff Jaffe: Not very good at the blow jobs.

Re:Idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126345)

Summed up better this way.

If you reject DRM, you "risk" walling off parts of the Web.

If you accept DRM, however, you GUARANTEE that parts of the Web will become walled off.

As someone who has been repeatedly screwed by DRM and learnt his lesson I say FUCK YOU to the bastards who want to increase it's use. It is a cancer on the web and should be cut out before it spreads.

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44126403)

Yes. We risk "walling off" Sony, Disney and the rest...

Wow. A web the way I liked it, before big-media and commercial presence sought to replicate the AOL experience. :-)

In fact, that's a great way to describe this: If you accept DRM in HTML, you risk the AOLization of the web.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

alucardX (734977) | about a year ago | (#44126547)

If you feel this way then you need to let the W3C know. Join their mailing list and let them know how you feel. Right now they pretty much have a Netflix employee defending everything he can about DRM. The only people in opposition to it on that mailing list right now have a very small voice. Jump on and voice this opinion. Overwhelm them the way that we overwhelmed them with PIPA and SOPA.

Re:Idiots (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about a year ago | (#44126587)

I would say it would be possible to call it Jaffe's gaffe of stupidity.

Re:Idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126119)

They are not idiots. This is more about control over where and when normal users can use the media, rather than about the piracy.

Re:Idiots (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126277)

They are idiots.

There are two choices...

1)
DRM is embraced, studios put crippled, DRM-enabled content on the web
Outcome: The dumbest 1% of consumers pays for DRM streams, the other 99% goes to The Pirate Bay.

2)
DRM is not supported in web browsers.
Outcome: Studios don't put any content on the web, the dumbest 1% of consumers buys disks or whatever and the other 99% goes to The Pirate Bay.

Here's the far-fetched option 3:

DRM is not supported anywhere.
Studios sell on-line for a fair price in a real format.
Outcome:
10-50% of customers pay for proper, unencumbered content and the money goes to the rightful publisher.
The rest turn to The Pirate Bay.

Missing the point (1, Troll)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44126209)

It seems you're ignoring the point on purpose here. The W3C isn't forcing anyone to use DRM. The W3C doesn't care if your DRM works.

The web is whatever "we" want it to be. Since there are companies using DRM on the web, it only makes sense to expand the specs to include that. It's just the next logical step towards finally killing Flash, Silverlight, etc.

Re:Missing the point (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126365)

No, it means they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal.

Flash at least does not demand your OS have a content protected path and actively fight your ownership.

Re:Missing the point (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44126489)

No, it means they want to embrace DRM. They want us to be happy about it. They want to support it and make it normal.

[citation needed]

Re:Missing the point (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126561)

I present the summary as my citation.
This asshole says we have to accept it or they will take their ball and go home. I say don't let the door hit you where the FSM split you.

Re:Missing the point (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year ago | (#44126571)

So your evidence of the W3C's intentions is an anonymous Slashdot user's summary? Oh dear.

Re:Missing the point (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126577)

It has links to the article, try following them.
Their own CEO is quoted.

EME won't kill Flash (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year ago | (#44126473)

EME = having Flash, Silverlight, whatnot encysted in HTML, forever.

Even worse, as CDMs aren't really meant to be implemented as browser plugins, we'll end up with sites that work only in a specific browser, or in a specific OS, or even in a specific OS under certain circumstances.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126533)

There can not be a spec that provides DRM and at the same time doesn't pervert what the web is, and I would rather not have the browser be something that an industry feels they need to keep secure from me.

You must be smarter than them. (0)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44126417)

Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.

This is such an amateurish statement, coming from people that have no sense of systems design and architecture.

The correct answer is people don't care about costs as much as they care about convenience.

A DRM system is far more convenient than having to go through the hack of torrents and whatever other crappy black-market methods exist for watching movies.

This is why movie studios aren't concerned about "a single file getting out there", since they know the vast majority of people don't want to bother with finding movies the hard way.

You dumbass "freedom" lovers are going to have to face the reality of DRM soon enough, and you'll like it, because a zero-knowledge system IS actually better than learning about hacking together systems.

And once we enable DRM, we can finally enable movie studios to allow movies to play movies online.

The tech community needs to do a better job of kissing ass to the artists, since no artist wants to give away their product to losers that don't pay for it or don't provide any return value back.

And, no, you don't provide any value to artists. Artists actually LOVE collaborating with artists, often for free, because there is a mutual respect. It is why Eddie van Halen played guitar for free on Michaal Jackson's Thriller. It is why Kanye gets a million artists to play on his records, because he is awesome like that.

But you guys aren't artists, because you don't add to the state-of-the-art.

So, be modest. Artists don't value you people. You're not awesome. You are inferior to them. Everyone feels like they have a sense of superiority, especially "freedom" loving libertarians that have an artificially inflated sense of self. But, unfortunately, you actually are worthless. They are the artists. You are simply worthless consumers, that provide zero artistic value.

Feel free to kiss artists ass. And give them what they want in DRM.

Re:You must be smarter than them. (2)

SteffenM (166724) | about a year ago | (#44126593)

Way to completely fuck up your own point by blaming the wrong group of people.

It's Publishers that don't value the consumer. It's Publishers that want DRM on everything they own the copyright for. It's Publishers that want to enforce these draconian rulesets limiting your access to content across various media so they can force you to pay per platform rather than per piece of content.

Get it right.

Re:Idiots (1)

DRJlaw (946416) | about a year ago | (#44126433)

How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed. I'll be there's a copy on Pirate Bay. They seem to be under the impression that each individual pirate has to crack their weird schemes.

Once a single person does it and produces a clean file then it's game over - its in the wild - and SOMEONE always manages to do it.

You seem to be under the impression that they have to have perfect DRM. Also, as to the "SOMEONE always manages to do it" part -- Microsoft PlayReady DRM. I've trashed hours of WMC recordings rendered unviewable due to a failure of the host PC which required a hardware swap. Good thing it was only television.

The goal of DRM is to make casual piracy difficult. The goal of the litgation campaigns is to make using TPB risky. The goal of DRM is not to prevent anyone anywhere from ever managing to make a copy. It's to make it difficult enough to copy that you'll pay. Combine a lesser degree of DRM with a greater degree of convenience, and you have NetFlix. I can't easily copy NetFlix content, and frankly it wouldn't be worth my time to find that content elsewhere.

As to the idiots part -- I kindly refer you to the Humble Bundles. DRM free. Pay what you want. Dedicate any fraction of what you do pay to charity. Yet each and every one has been posted to TPB. If you're in it for a living, you might as well keep it from being too easy to copy, because nobody is going to cut you a break for not trying.

Re:Idiots (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126613)

If you are in it for a living you might as well not waste your income on DRM. Because clearly it does not do a damn thing.

The goal of DRM is laughable on its face. It does not work. You know what does though? Charging a reasonable price and not worrying about those who would have never paid.

Re:Idiots (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#44126517)

How many of these measures to "Protect something from piracy" ever work? Name the most DRM'd copy-protected movie ever distributed.

DIVX [wikipedia.org] worked, didn't it?
I doubt it'd stand up to an attack today, but it was secure enough for its time.

DRM don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126563)

People don't want DRM. DRM don't work.
DRM is bad for the internet. And DRM is bad for the open standards internet is built.

DRM is about reducing quality. And we need more quality, not less. DRM is user-hostile, developer-hostile, standards-hostile.

Its against everything the Internet represent.

Walling off (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#44126049)

Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.

Re:Walling off (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44126323)

Weasel words. Walling off content is effectively the same thing.

And by incorporating DRM in the standard, they're guaranteeing that this walling-off of content will become so much easier to do. The walling-off will even comply with standards, instead of being fairly ad-hoc and deviating from standards as at present.

Good. (2, Funny)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year ago | (#44126065)

Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.

Re:Good. (1)

fl!ptop (902193) | about a year ago | (#44126143)

Similarly, it is a good idea to wall off some parts of a city that is infested with bubonic plague.

How can pirated software kill you?

Re:Good. (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44126225)

I think you've got the question backward—it's "How can DRM kill you?" to which the answer is "metaphorically" with the possible post-script "it's a bit too late to protest hyperbole."

Re:Good. (2)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | about a year ago | (#44126529)

Suppose your medical records were DRM'd and later became inaccessible?

Re:Good. (1)

SteffenM (166724) | about a year ago | (#44126229)

If you attempt to interpret GP in the reverse of what you seem to have, I think you'll get closer to the true point of Tough Love's comment.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#44126449)

It's DRM'd content that kills. And it doesn't kill a person, it destroys culture and human legacy. Because when a thing is published and yet not available except under specific conditions controlled by a party, when changes occur, bad things happen to that content.

It is a violation of the spirit of copyright law to have DRM. The spirit of copyright is that for a limited time, the work is exclusive to a party for licensing, publishing and distribution. But when that time is up, it SHALL fall into the public domain as a contribution to the collection of human works. The problem is the content will be lost forever before the content is released to the public domain and there is no financial incentive for publishers to publish DRM free content free of charge and certainly no such REQUIREMENT.

Publishers think they "own" the content and I don't think that is entirely the case. The content is allowed under government blessing like a child. A parent has rights and responsibilities over a child until the limited term of parenthood has expired. The law doesn't allow a parent to kill a child or otherwise to prevent him from entering society. Additionally, other forms of abuse of children are illegal and/or prohibited.

When a copyright holder engages exclusive rights, the second half is not being honored or guaranteed. That needs to change. Furthermore, the publishers need to be held to task and even sued over the loss of things which have already been lost.

Human culture and history is being lost and it is significant. And the losses are due to be increasingly larger as content of today is almost exclusively digital in storage format.

I will risk walling off parts of the web ... (1)

Nail (1195) | about a year ago | (#44126071)

... that suck because of DRM.

In other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126077)

Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off

Good (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126079)

Good, let them wall themselves off.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#44126271)

It's what is happening. I had a professor in college who predicted by 2015 - 2020 the internet as we knew it then would be over. It would be controlled by corporate and governmental interests and that would be achieved through fragmentation and the fact that the backbone of the internet is owned by just a hand full of companies worldwide. While we've not yet seen the fragmentation yet, we've heard grumblings. I think what Iran is trying to do is similar to how the Great Firewall of China proved the internet could be tamed far easier than most around here thought. If Iran is even marginally successful in creating a Jihadnet or whatever, look for other other countries to try and do the same.

Re:Good (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126311)

If we let them make DRM a normal part of the web it will go even faster.

At least we can fight them on this. Someone will take a no DRM movie release risk and profit from it. That will be that. We already see this with things like comedians releasing their works this way.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44126399)

The term they used was 'Halal Internet.'

'Halal' just means 'permitted under Islamic law.' The implication being that the internet outside is not permitted, because it is contaminated by unislamic content like blasphemy and pornography.

Re:Good (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126491)

The Blasphemy and pornography are the best parts!

Never trust anyone who does not drink.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126273)

Indeed. Videos were being ripped and uploaded to the Internet long before the movie studios got their greasy hands all over it. All that movie studios risk doing by pulling their own videos from the web is a return to the bygone days before everything became monetized and privacy invasion was something only hackers did.

first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126081)

first

And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126083)

DRM doesn't work anyway. Pirates will bypass or remove the DRM or get the content some other way.

Embrace DRM and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126089)

wall yourself off from most of the web.

how does the saying go (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126093)

removing anything off the internet is like trying to take the pee out of the pool

Remove movies from the web? So what? (5, Insightful)

the_furman (931683) | about a year ago | (#44126095)

I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way. It's the movie studios that will be diminished and, likely, quickly outcompeted in the marketplace. I think it's time to start full-stop calling all the bluffs.

Re:Remove movies from the web? So what? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126123)

The fuss is they don't like what they can't control. They also think for some damn reason we should be happy to chain ourselves up.

Re:Remove movies from the web? So what? (4, Informative)

the_furman (931683) | about a year ago | (#44126253)

Oh I get that. What I don't understand is why anyone should care. If movie studios (or whoever else) want to make themselves insta-obsolete by refusing to embrace modern technology, so what? The market will provide other less short-sighted sources of entertainment.

Re:Remove movies from the web? So what? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126333)

You hit the nail on the head.

The real fear is now that DRM free content is slowly coming it challenges the old guard. They have to stop that now or they will never be able to.

Re:Remove movies from the web? So what? (2)

Pinkfud (781828) | about a year ago | (#44126145)

Movie studios should remove their garbage from everywhere, and we should stop paying them money that they use to shaft us with.

What now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126101)

What now RMS?

yes we must! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126103)

we must wall off the web or else we'll wall off the web!

DRM is here to stay (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#44126115)

As long as it remains relatively unobtrusive. That was its problem in the early day, DRM was overly restrictive and made things a PITA for most ordinary users to use it. Apple figured out a way to do it where DRM was there, but was relatively unobtrusive. The studios et. al. learned. So long as it's easy to use and stays out of the way of what most people want to do, i.e. view content online easily, it will remain. When most people go to Netflix, so long as the movie they click on starts to play, they don't care if it has DRM or not.

Re:DRM is here to stay (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126159)

The problem is it cannot be unobtrusive and work with an OS I want to use.

Sure I can tolerate it on my ps3, but not on a real computer.

DRM on music is now dead, books are next, then movies.

Re:DRM is here to stay (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#44126357)

Unfortunately, you don't matter.

So long as it works on Windows & MacOS as well as iOS, consoles, and most brand name Android devices that's enough to reach the overwhelming number of people on the planet. Most of whom don't care about DRM so long as it works on my X device.

Re:DRM is here to stay (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126387)

That is what they said about music. Look what happened there.

If you want to sell things to less tech inclined folks I matter a lot. They ask me what service is the best, or product. You had better believe I steer them towards things that avoid this sort of BS. MP3s without DRM from amazon for instance.

Re:DRM is here to stay (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year ago | (#44126389)

I'd be more happy if it worked in browsers outside of IE more.

Re:DRM is here to stay (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44126557)

> So long as it works on Windows & MacOS

We already have DRM standards that fail this test.

Nice try.

Troll harder next time.

Re:DRM is here to stay (2)

Brandano (1192819) | about a year ago | (#44126251)

But guess what? Cracked content is even less obtrusive. A movie where the DRM has been stripped will play on pretty much any machine, and not only on those that support a DRM scheme. And it will keep being accessible onche the DRM technology is obsolete or support for it has ceased. I can't see DRM ever compete with that. Did copy protection save the CD?

Re:DRM is here to stay (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44126427)

Apple only managed that because they controled the service, software, OS and hardware - and even then, their DRM was cracked in more ways that I can even bother to count.

What the MOO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126135)

Seriously DRM walls the open web? How about open web pages coded using HTM walling the web instead of Binary extensions which further wall the web into obscurity and encourage further violations of the principle of a universal accessible internet. I already hate flash and silverlight becaue they are properitary pieces of rubbish.
The W3C Need get this guy sorted out quickly, he is goning to ruin the open web we take for granted, Not Cool

Re:What the MOO? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44126191)

I agree, Jeff Jaffe needs to get a pink slip.

This should simply be viewed as treason.

Re:What the MOO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126367)

I'd sign that petition.

DRM on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126147)

If you're going full-DRM, at least give it to me on Linux, BSD, whatever. I don't care how you do it. I want to consume your crap on things that are not Windows or Mac! And you're making me angry by excluding me. And the Linux crowd is quite big these days you douchebags!

Re:DRM on Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126359)

This obligatory comment is getting old. You are part of an insignificant market which makes the cost of supporting it not worthwhile. This is still the truth, so suck it up.

Re:DRM on Linux (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44126579)

> This obligatory comment is getting old. You are part of an insignificant market which makes the cost of supporting it not worthwhile. This is still the truth, so suck it up.

Well then you are destroying the basic premise of the web.

The moment you try to declare ANY set of users "too small to be worthy", you've completely lost the point of the world wide web to begin with.

THAT is the point of open standards. NO ONE has to be left behind just because some jackass wants to declare them irrelevant.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126151)

the chief executive of the web standards body W3C was paid off and pressured to say this by the movie/music organizations.

Walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126165)

Is DRM not walling off parts of the web in the first place

Re:Walls (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44126429)

Bingo. The whole point of DRM is to 'wall off parts of the web'... it exists soley to prevent people from accessing data, and has no other purpose.

Oh dear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126177)

They're threatening to take away our ability to torrent their movies?

Better safe than sorry (1)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#44126203)

Keep your restricted content off the web so we don't have to worry. I am sure people will rise to fill the gaps left behind with freely redistributable content. See, Problem Solved.

Build walls in our park (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126207)

We have to build walls in our park, or else someone might build walls outside.

DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126213)

That statements makes no sense whatever since using i DRM itself is walling of the web.

Only the biggest browsers / projects will get access to whatever secrets are needed to impelement the DRM blackboxes, which means the web will no longer be free because you have to deal with the demands of this DRM nonsense to produce a relevant browser.

If this comes to pass I hope someone comes up with a new three letter abrivation to replace www and starts over again with sites aimed at sharing information and appropriate standards to achieving the goal.

So we should ban all region free DVD players? (1)

djsmiley (752149) | about a year ago | (#44126231)

????? ^^^^^

This isn't ascii art, I have no more to add :/

their movies aren't walled off now? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44126239)

they're all behind drm now. so what's the deal? it's not like netflix has non drm content section. it's not like I can buy movies on physical media without some sort of drm on them. so what exactly would they be removing?

why do we need another plugin system, when we have one that works perfectly well for the drm? what's in it for w3c? cash? why would the studios be anymore interested in porting their drm schemes to exotic hardware if you provided them with a new plugin system.

that the organization has a CEO is a failure in the first place - fuck 'em.

oh we need them because ms discontinued silverlight and netflix needs a new plugin.. yeah, perfectly good reasoning, that we need this or netflix goes out of business out of spite. and one thing mr ceo these 3 companies.. haven't they ALREADY fucking implemented the thing? didn't I just read about it a few articles ago? what the fuck do we need the EME standard for if they already did it, they as companies are who is pushing for it and they as companies can do it regardless of what W3C does or doesn't do. only thing your stamp is buying you is couple of free lunches and some budget money while taking it up the ass.

why don't you make like an unicorn and finally tell us what HTML5 actually encompasses instead of latching on more every year so we could finally perhaps have html5 compatible browsers - not that it matters since it seems webkit and IE11(or whatever) are actually the defacto standard here.

I don't actually massively object to DRM in HTML (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year ago | (#44126255)

Dr Jaffe misses the point.

Yes, opinions about whether DRM should be in HTML vary, and some people are very opposed to it, and have a perfect right to be. Reasonable people can disagree.

However, the proposal isn't DRM in HTML, it's worse. It's a way to call DRM plug-ins. It doesn't standardize the DRM, or the plug-ins, or the language the plug-ins are written in, or in any other way reflect the notion that HTML is a platform in and of itself, independent of the layer it runs over.

Indeed, it doesn't specify anything that cannot, today, be done via plug-ins.

As such, it's a stupid addition to web standards. It's pointless. It will not make studios suddenly excited about using the web, because if they're excited about using the web they're already using it with the existing plug-in framework. And it will not stop content providers who demand, rightly or wrongly, DRM, fleeing the web, because it doesn't add anything.

This proposal should not appear in the HTML standards. It should never have even been considered for inclusion.

I'm unclear on the Chief's point (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44126279)

What he said is along similar lines of "If you don't use something other than Linux, you're probably not going to be able to watch Neflix." Or "If you don't let the TSA molest you, you won't be allowed on the flight."

The Chief here says basically that if you don't let them have their way, you won't be able to use their services. And I'm not sure I give a damn whether their services get used in the first place. That's time I could use to practice guitar instead, but honestly, I'm lazy enough and easily distracted enough that as long as things are easy to use, I'll still get home, sit online, and then wonder when I drag myself to bed, "where the hell did my evening go?"

So to those who would wall off portions of the internet, I say bring it. I need to finish learning the solo from Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" anyway.

two sides to this (1)

apcullen (2504324) | about a year ago | (#44126287)

On the one hand, I can't watch netflix on linux, because the DRM isn't supported. Netflix is a part of the net that is already "walled off" to anyone who doesn't have an account, but it's walled off to me right now even though I subscribe. That sucks, and it would probably be avoided if Firefox and chrome support DRM as suggested.

OTOH

I can easily foresee a world where pretty much all the content is restricted. Not just movies. News. Weather. Slashdot. Everything will be DRM protected.That sucks worse.

Re:two sides to this (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44126475)

DRM cannot be open-source, for an obvious reason: If it were, you could just comment out the 'don't copy' line and recompile. The proposed HTML DRM scheme isn't a DRM scheme itsself, but an API by which a propritary DRM binary can be loaded and interface with the browser. So even if Firefox and Chrome supported the API, the DRM vendor (ie, Netflix) would also have to release a linux binary - and given the difficulty of ensuring the DRM is secure on an OS where everything from the kernel to the video driver is subject to user modification, there isn't any chance of that happening.

Re:two sides to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126541)

OTOH

I can easily foresee a world where pretty much all the content is restricted. Not just movies. News. Weather. Slashdot. Everything will be DRM protected.That sucks worse.

Exactly and this is why the fucking cunts at the W3C should have never ever even conceived of these EME. What they have done is basically give a political legitimatecy to DRM proponents not only for movies (this is the first step) but any other kind of content that for the moment because of external factors is free for all.
In fact, just wait some months and you'll start hearing how DRM is standardised on the web (and this will never be true because the EME implementation IS by its very nature OS specific) so moving to DRM content will be no problem. No user will be cut off because DRM is standard. See no problemo. Fuck them, and Jeff Jaffe should be hanged and quartered as a warning to future idiots thinking along the same lines.
What the W3C has done is effectively killed the world wide web. It's only a matter of time, but the www will be trasformed into a glorified tv. A one way transmission channel with the gatekeepers being the DRM masters. Again fuck the W3C and Jeffe Jaffe.

Re:two sides to this (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year ago | (#44126569)

You can't implement DRM in open source, so Firefox and Linux are out of the question. Chrome will probably implement some EME-compliant DRM, since Google are among the main proponents of EME. But you'll probably have to run it under a closed OS, such as Windows or (unrooted) Android in order to make it work.

And risk their income? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126291)

So he is suggesting that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Vimeo, and the dozens of other sites that utilize streaming movies as a revenue stream wouldn't exist if this DRM wasn't in place... wait.... I'm confused. How DO these companies make money without this DRM? Gosh.

He honestly thinks companies are going to cut off their revenue streams because a couple people might figure out a way to download and save their videos? Bullshit.

So many lies wrapped into such a small sentence. Is he a lobbiest too?

typical use case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126309)

What is the advantage of this in a typical use case, for example a user streaming encrypted HTML5 media from tpb?

If they are not in the standard (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#44126321)

then they won't be part of the web.

Unlikely Scenario (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126347)

scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy

Everthing is moving towards the web. The above scenario will never happen. Unless ofcourse DRM is included in the html spec, then it might.

Cause and Effect... which is which? (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | about a year ago | (#44126379)

Gee... if content is easy to access and affordable, then (most) people won't pirate it. People that still do would have done it no matter what - they're not your customers and you're NOT losing money by them doing so. (sure, it's not fair, yada yada)

But - when content is not easily and affordably available (say, because you "removed content from the web to protect it from piracy"), that's exactly what ENCOURAGES normal people to consider pirating in the first place. Those ARE their "customers" who would have paid a reasonable price for content that they can use in their preferred manner. They're shooting themselves in the foot, which is hardly surprising.

I don't see the idiocy stopping any time soon...

Re:Easy to Access and Affordable (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about a year ago | (#44126585)

A good example would be Netflix streaming. That service costs less than dinner at a fast food restaurant. It isn't worth my hard drive space to try and pirate it.

I call your bluff (2)

Aaden42 (198257) | about a year ago | (#44126405)

... to help prevent scenarios such as movie studios removing films from the web in a bid to protect them from piracy.

Last I checked, the movie studios need our money more than we need their movies. Remove content from what is increasingly becoming the de facto way of purchasing entertainment, and they stand to lose far more revenue than is "lost" to illegal copies.

The music industry seems to have successfully had a clue rammed down their throat, at least with regards to selling DRM-free music. The movie industry is long over due.

I say call their bluff. Let's see who blinks first.

Rejecting DRM is good (3, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#44126419)

The problem with W3C's argument is it fails to recognize the enormous market value in making sure content is accessible to most number of eyeballs possible.

If megamediacorp wants to distribute content anywhere to any device any browser then they can't use technology not widely deployed or implemented. For example requiring third party plugins could provide missing functionality but they take a hit in knowing their content is not universally reachable.

If instead you just give in and widely implement whatever blackbox content feels will protect their content today then media companies no longer feel any pressure not to DRM/encrypt EVERYTHING and before you know it all content is DRM'd.

As a practical matter I never understood the DRM issue as the simple truth is that if you can decrypt it to view it you can certainly copy it. The only way for DRM to actually work is a fully trusted environment where the user is denied full access to their devices and physical hardware is tamper proof. Even if this were achivable nothing stops out of band re-recording of media. Not only is DRM evil but it is pointless... a total waste of time and resources as were the DVD and Blueray copy protection schemes. It can't work unless everyone is denied the right to own a general purpose computer.

Wall It Off. I firmly reject DRM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126439)

I firmly reject DRM. Wall off whatever you like. You will become completely irrelevant and the rest of the Internet will be awesome. Do it. Please.

DRM (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126447)

Let them remove anything and everything. It won't take long before they realize they need us more than we need them!
And while I'm at it, why doesn't the community at large "Just Say No."? Why do we allow ourselves to become the victims like this story suggests?
If you want to put something out there, then put it out there. But to modify software and protocols for the internet at large so that someone makes a buck that they didn't realize they might have made... well... I choose not to play.

Dr. Jaffee: (1)

ewhac (5844) | about a year ago | (#44126463)

Dr. Jafee:

Pursuant to your comments reported on 27 June 2013 on ZDNet.com:

You're fired, for cause, effective immediately. Please collect your personal belongings and vacate W3C premises no later than 17:00 local time today.

Regards,
The Web

who says? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126479)

i reject DRM by not buying products that restrict my usage - and quite frankly, after moving to a new residence with a distinct lack of broadband connectivity, actually feel much better *not* using the Internet as much (i can still do banking, email, etc., but i live in a digital wasteland where FIOS, DSL and cable are all around and nearby, but not available to my residence [and no, i'm not incarcerated])..

Can't operate without DRM? Then don't operate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126505)

If businesses can't operate on the internet without DRM, then they don't deserve to operate on the internet.
We are not obligated to support business models that require us to sacrifice or ones who cannot stand on their own.

Screw this guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44126507)

Well, there goes any credibility the "Chief" may have had. Maybe it's time to place someone in that position whose interests coincide with the web's interests, rather than the interests of a few businesspeople who can't make any money honestly and just want to nickle and dime us into oblivion with intrusive, draconian, ineffectual technology. We already have governments the world over abusing the Internet to their own spying ends, we don't need to let other abusive control freaks in as well.

DRM itself isn't bad (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year ago | (#44126539)

In general terms, Digital Rights Management isn't necessarily a bad thing, and used properly can be very helpful. The problem is so many companies wielding DRM like a club, and bludgeoning their customers about the head and shoulders at every opportunity.

Look at iTunes, Steam, Netflix/Hulu ... all examples of DRM done right. They make it inconvenient to copy/pirate their content, while making it extremely convenient to use that content "properly." Watching movies, playing games and listing to music are simple and streamlined. Plus they're cheap cheap. For instance, if you just find a single TV show on Netflix, you can burn through a couple of seasons and completely justify the $8... and don't even get me started on Steam Sales. Summer sale is just around the corner.

The problem arises when preventing piracy steps on the toes of general usability. Sony's infamous rootkits, music piracy lawsuits, XBone in general (depending on how much MS has backtracked) or the current "Online Pass" era of video games, project $10 and the general hatred spewed towards the likes of Game-Stop**. All these things make it less convenient, less safe, and generally less fun to participate in the activities they're trying to protect.

**As an aside, I've always found an interesting dichotomy with Gamestop. Big publishers are doing everything they can to paint used games as the devil, killing business and clubbing baby seals or whatever ... but at the same time, almost every game released (especially from big publishers like EA) comes with special exclusive Gamestop pre-order bonuses.

OR... (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about a year ago | (#44126545)

We could ALL reject DRM and allow those media distribution companies that insist on it to wither and die. I like my idea better. Lets all vote with our wallets.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>