Who's adding DRM to HTML5? Microsoft, Google and Netflix

With tech companies abandoning the proprietary Flash and Silverlight media players for HTML5, it was inevitable somebody would try to inject DRM into the virgin spec. Microsoft, Google and Netflix are that “somebody”, having submitted a proposed modification to HTML5 to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for “encrypted media …

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Try that at a theater sometimes....

"Tell me why this is different."

Because it's an entirely different situation perhaps? Your analogy is akin to those "you wouldn't steal a car" PSAs. Each time I go to the cinema or theatre the operator bears a cost (electricity, heating, staffing, etc.), and since the amounts of seats are finite and assuming the theatre is full then I'm preventing another potential sale. When I watch a video at my computer/television/tablet/whatever none of that happens, I've already paid for it, there's no further cost to the publisher so attempts to charge me for every time I view it are obviously unjustified in the eyes of reasonably-minded people. If you're a simplistic free-market nutjob then this might be lost on you however.

[Annakan]

Re: Try that at a theater sometimes....

Because you get it all wrong.

The theater is supposed to offer me other services than just the movie, the place, the screen, the sound, they have invested in real estate locally, they don't have a zero reproduction cost business.

And give me non transferable IP, meaning all proceeding always go to the creator, and I might agree with you, this is not the way it is, the one profiteering from the IP have close to nothing to do with the creators, from authors to technician, at least in the share of the benefits.

[heyrick]

Why does this matter?

Is every browser going to support every common video codec, plus updates for new stuff plus changes (ie 10 bit H.264)? Or are we going to suffer being limited to a codec or two and tough luck if it doesn't do what you'd like... It's a goddammed *BROWSER*, not VLC with fancy text. Please let the video support be via plug-in libraries so not only can they be disabled/updated separately from the browser, but also "they" can release a DRM codec and sink or swim based upon that...

[M Gale]

Re: Why does this matter?

Exactly!

But watch out, you'll get accused of being a left-wing, librul, money-hating, anti-american communist freetarded pig-dog in a minute.

[mraak]

Re: Why does this matter?

Are you calling Flash? The hated, unwanted, evildoer, that's to blame for all bad that happened to his world ever since iPhone was introduced?

[heyrick]

Re: Re: Why does this matter?

Flash sucks, that's for sure, but it's far from the only video-capable browser extension around (DivX player, Octoshape, VLC, blah blah).

[J 3]

and Silverlight from Adobe

Sold, already!?

[Crisp]

Who the hell do they think they are?

Just who the hell do they thing they are to tell me what I can do with a legally purchased movie or video?

I will carry on treating my possessions the same way I always have. What gives them the power to take away my statutory rights?

[Nick Ryan]

Re: Who the hell do they think they are?

A copy of something isn't the same as possession.

While you do indeed own the physical media and packaging and therefore you can do whatever you like with this physical side of it - including, much to the utter horror / disgust of the media companies, reselling, lending or giving it away.

However what you are really purchasing is a bit of packaging with a *licence*, restricted as legally as possible (check the small print), to view the content that just happens to be encoded in some form on the material itself. As a result, making a copy of this content is a violation of the implicit contract you agreed to in purchasing the licence to view this content and the physical packaging that just happened to come with it and doing so without the Copyright holder's prior permission is also a Violation of the Copyright of the content - it is not, and never can be, *theft*.

[Nick Ryan]

Re: Re: Who the hell do they think they are?

Is this always fair? No. However the original creators of the content should be rewarded (compensated) for the skill, talent or just effort involved. Beyond the original creators of the content there are teams of people who often end up supporting it - marketing, distribution, legal teams, advisers and so on. These people should also be adequately rewarded for their skill, time and effort.

The situation is made complicated because with a digital copy, i.e. online, there is no restraining physical media. For example, with a book you can in reality quite easily (haha) copy it using a photocopier and handing the resulting pile of dead tree to a friend to read. On the other hand you could just lend the book to a friend once you've read it and this kind of usage of content is thoroughly ingrained in how we act. As a result a book has a form of copy protection built in but it doesn't have any rights management - there is no realistic way for the publisher of the book to stop you lending it to a friend, not matter how much they'd like to as they'd much prefer to sell your friend a fresh copy.

Personally, I'd deliver video (possibly using SSL) within a logged in account on a website. The user can view the content from pretty much anywhere and if the content is time limited, the account detail can be updated to no longer provide the content. The end user *could* make a copy of the content but if the price is right, access is very easy and tangible rewards are offered for purchase (i.e. exclusive loyalty offers not sourcable elsewhere) then an provider could be onto a winner. Somebody could always point a camera at the screen, but the point is to make it far easier to get it legitimately for a fair price. Unfortunately the entrenched industries don't see it like this, see increased prices and greater restrictions as the only way to improve market penetration and when they commission reports into the alternatives they already know what they want the reports to read.

[Annakan]

Re: Re: Re: Who the hell do they think they are?

This is AWESOME :

"marketing, distribution, legal teams, advisers and so on."

All people that only exist because lock in (and now DRM) and IP right are the way they are.

These people do not provide ANY value to the creative work (no a song is not better because it is "marketed", neither is a painting or a movie, more successful, maybe, better no).

Parasites that ask to be fed on the back of the creator(s)., who incidentally are gets the LOWEST share of the retribution...

In a "logical" and "fair" world you would pay 1/10 of the price you pay now (and yes I'll do it even if I could copy it, not all of us are undiscriminated thieves) AND the creator(s) would be retributed 2 to 4 times what they are now.

And yes the "marketing, distribution, legal teams, advisers and so on." would have to find another job or work for another kind of product where maybe this has value, and maybe they would be creating wealth and the whole society would benefit from it (through a mechanism call taxes, among a few other that are designed to spread the wealth and sow the society).

Dream on ?

[Nick Ryan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the hell do they think they are?

"marketing, distribution, legal teams, advisers and so on."

"All people that only exist because lock in (and now DRM) and IP right are the way they are."

Not true. While I'm happy to agree that many don't add to the quality of in some ways to the value of the work, they are often required:

* marketing - help the public find out about the work in the first place.

* distribution - those CDs or books don't get to the stores on their own

* legal teams - ok, maybe they should all be shot (in front of their families no less) but some form of legal assistance is often necessary. If only to ensure the split of royalties is correctly drawn up. (notice how I'm avoiding the word "fare")

* advisers - artists aren't always the most world savvy people and often need assistance. From how not to get arrested too often, where to holiday without being mobbed or just how to avoid paying quite so much tax.

With a switch to digital these roles would change, however there are still a lot of cases where they are needed. For example, if you're a talented singer with a good band but nobody buys your music because nobody knows who you are - would you like to put the effort into learning how and where to best promote your band or would you employ somebody who has the experience to do it and you can get on doing what you like doing best - i.e. creating music? Simplistic example I know, but still valid.

And yes, I'd be more than happy to pay less and have the artist / creator get more of the money. However that is muddying the issue and while nastily tied up with Copy Protection and DRM, is a separate blight on the creative industry.

[JDX]

Re: Who the hell do they think they are?

They think they are the person selling you a license to watch the media. They are right.

[squilookle]

DRM has a time and a place

For services where you rent the content like Spotify and Netflix, it's fair enough because I understood when I signed up that I do not own the content and would lose access to it if I ended my subscription, so that's fine.

On the other hand, I think DRM on a download or a disc that I have purchased is wrong. It's mine and I want to be able to play my content on any device I see fit.

As I'm not against DRM for streaming then, I was going to post here saying that I don't think adding DRM to the spec would be unethical and that, if we want to be able to stream the content many of us want on any device we want, such as Linux boxes, then this would be a good thing.

However, there are some convincing arguments in the comments against it too, so I'm really not sure now, other than to say that if anything like this did get into the spec, then it would have to be done very, very, very cautiously and would be a compromise, not ideal.

[mraak]

Oh, we're totally HTML5

Because it's open.

[clean_state]

DRM not needed

I disagree with the comments saying that DRM is required to enable a movie rental service like Netflix.

It is the same argument as used a couple of years ago to explain that DRM was required to make a music purchase service like iTunes work. "Otherwise you could copy the music off your neighbour's computer instead of buying it, gov'ner - duh." went the argument. iTunes is now a thriving DRM-less music service.

For netflix rentals, all you have to do is enable streaming in the time window the user has paid for. He comes later, the "watch now" button is not there anymore. No need to change the HTTP or HTML spec for that. Of course some people will record the stream but ... This has been debated over and over and SETTLED with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the opposition to this. HTML5 video is for streaming video. All the people complaining about DRM oppose to the MP3-like DRM where it is your content after you buy it but then are restricted to do what you what. That's not what this is.

The restrictions Youtube and Netflix relate to streaming it. If you sign up to their service (willingly) then you play by their rules. Without this restriction Netflix would be completely free and make no money and then obviously close. Content providers would still be able to not enforce the DRM should it be non-paid content. Everyone wins.

If its not included in HTML5 spec then as so many people have said before no-one will use it and carry on using numerous codecs (such as Flash) and HTML will have fixed nothing.

And even if DRM can be beaten in a matter of time that doesn't mean it should be there. It's not too hard to pick/break a lock to your home but you still have one on your door..

[Annakan]

Simple solution, if they don't want the content seen and spread

They should not release it.

Honestly I am so fucking tired of this artificial creation of scarcity benefiting always the same people and screwing all the others, artists included.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a de-facto standard

for Web video (DRM or not) and interactivity, in the shape of Flash. HTML5 is a solution looking for a problem, it is the "new big thing" and if you're not into it you're Wrong(tm).

(I also find '90s Web pages much more readable/accessible than modern ones, and I wish those damn kids would get off my lawn.)

[the-it-slayer]

DRM incites piracy?

Yes it does. To make content so difficult, time-consuming, resource consuming to view, aren't you just making a case for someone to go and get it elsewhere? DRM makes it difficult for you to move that content around to different hardware or playable devices in terms of the media context.

Okay, we have copy-protection (weak however) on DVDs. However, at least you can lend, sell or burn that copy however you like. Techies/media mogues haven't come up with an inbetween to DRM and DRM-Free. PCs naturally give you the ability to "copy" data and multiple it out to other people via other media. Surely it would make more sense to block copying media files that have been bought from legit sites (i.e. iTunes, Amazon etc) and only allow them to play via the device you have it located on (maybe a stamp of some sort until an authorised move was done).

Again, this goes back to developers of operating systems unless video codec companies add that sort of protection to their encoders/decoders? We're getting the same old one small group tries to play the hands of everyone else for everyones benefit even though everyone may not agree.

Quack.

[A J Stiles]

Re: DRM incites piracy?

"Surely it would make more sense to block copying media files that have been bought from legit sites (i.e. iTunes, Amazon etc) and only allow them to play via the device you have it located on (maybe a stamp of some sort until an authorised move was done)."

Great idea! Shame that it's impossible and that the impossibility is a limitation, not of present technology, but of the universe itself (so nothing anyone could invent would make it possible).

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

It's all a tempist in a tea pot

I'll ignore for the moment that when users don't feel they are being ripped off by content providers overcharging for the content, they tend to not copy & distribute it.

All DRM schemes regardless of media eventually get defeated by people intent on defeating them. The real issue for those trying the protect their movies and music is to simply not have the bar so low that the average user, who has the technological prowess of a gerbil, can effortlessly copy and distribute the content. But study after study keeps showing that DRM free content does not tend to get pirated by users who feel the content provider is giving them a fair deal.

[Hayden Clark]

Open DRM

Is what is needed. The problem with the current crop of proponents is that they will ensure that a closed, patented DRM mechanism is mandated.

Now, if the DRM scheme is patent-free for both origination and consumption, that would potentially allow anybody to generate and publish content without the freetards nicking it. Think struggling bands, local TV, that sort of thing. It might actually make the provision of on-line content viable and democratic.

[the-it-slayer]

Re: Open DRM

Shame that big corps don't want multiple little corps taken a slice of their power. Great idea in principal, but only when everyone is round the table will that ever happen.

[dssf]

Considering that DRM allows/enables tracking...

Some of you may want to look at Ghostery. I found out about it just minutes ago reading some Dvorak stuff:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400448,00.asp

It is a tracker that tracks who is tracking YOU....

[Jean-Luc]

Dare I say it?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/407555_158851090901257_136257933160573_199310_607561453_n.jpg

Naw, gonna keep me mouth shut.

[Mikel]

What is even the point of DRM?

It's not like you can't get every single item of content unencrypted for free already. That cat is already out of the bag. The barn door is open and the horses have fled. What is it about making the content unusable by the people who actually pay for it that even starts to make sense? I just don't get it.