If you want to help stop this you can contact w3c here
The World Wide Web Consortium has formally put forward highly controversial digital rights management as a new web standard. Dubbed Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), this anti-piracy mechanism was crafted by engineers from Google, Microsoft, and Netflix, and has been in development for some time. The DRM is supposed to thwart …
Never know it? I guess you must be imagining some sort of binary that goes around reading all your files and sending them off over the network. Gee, how could I possibly detect something like that happening on an open source operating system? Pull the other one.
You won't have to remove it, you'll have to take some sort of positive action to install it, just like Linux never shipped with Flash pre-installed, you'll have to install this yourself manually. Don't want, don't install it.
Problem is that what will happen is that every place you can download anything will sharp add an encryption and you will need the drm engine to get past it. You won't be able to do squat with the stream apart from watch it right when you are connected.
So no more downloading a pile of stuff for my daughter to watch on the plane, back of car or anything else. That would be ok if that same stuff is available to BUY legit, but mostly it isnt
That's fine for *users* of free software/open source software, but not much of an option for developers of same.
(this is why I raised a formal objection at an earlier stage of the process - given the provisions regarding reverse engineering in the DMCA, EME presents a risk to open source developers and security researchers)
Since when has DRM ever "improved" anything for the law-abiding end-user ? The list of DRM failures is longer than I care to mention, much less research.
This whole article tells me one thing : Internet authorities have finally been bought out by RIAA/MPAA et co.
Thank God for Open Source, it's all we have left.
You're delusional. Not only digital freedoms but all forms of freedom in general are steadily eroding because nobody bothers to fight for them. DRM is now moving to farm equipment and coffee makers and there's not one single instance (feel free to prove me wrong) where it has been pushed back.
many are fighting to make sure that are freedoms are not eroded, and has DRM moved to farm equipment and coffee makers? can anyone back that up? but there has been a huge push back against most forms of DRM.
are digital freedoms and all forms of freedom are not being steadily erode because many are fighting to protect them and you can help by supporting the EFF and ACLU
Where is this huge pushback against DRM? Certainly not from the general public, who doesn't even know where they have DRM embedded in every TV sold for the past 15 years. Some might be vaguely conscious of the DRM in their DVDs.
If you want to fight against DRM, why don't you start by refusing to buy or own any TVs, since every TV sold with an HDMI port (other than maybe the first few years) supports DRM in the form of HDCP. And in the US at least, almost all cable/satellite operators enforce it on at least some channels, and many enforce it on all HD channels. And the world still turns.
I don't know about coffee makers but did spot this article about farm machinery a few days ago: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/farmers-using-hacked-firmware-to-bypass-john-deeres-software-stranglehold/. I'll be honest; I've not done any more research than read that article. It could be complete nonsense but is certainly in line with the 'design something that can only be removed with Ultra-Expensive Dealer-Only Doohickey Mk III' that already goes on.
"And how would you pirate it? By furtling some already-existing open source browser which runs the DRM plugin."
Well, to be honest, Internet Explorer wasn't standards compliant for years. So if someone wants to build an open source browser that's standards compliant for the things that matter, and ignore this DRM Standard, then the original poster can do whatever the feck he likes.
They do not run the servers or host anything useful since they sold out so just ignore them
As to the other bodies who thought this was a good idea, then remember you can also be ignored
IMHO until the day when no one can buy exclusive content rights then DRM is there simply to support a state sponsered monopoly that puts consumers last.
You would imagine that Netflix would know better, given their efforts in allowing VPN access to their services so as to allow their customers to bypass the same exclusive content restrictions that removes 70% of their content from their non-US customers
Again IMHO If the distributers were removed and content was sold direct to the consumer then the artists and studios would still make their money and when the content is too cheap to bother ripping actually remove the whole "piracy" issue once and for all. Distributors create nothing and exist only to tax their consumers, you would imagine that they would dislike them too but there you go
'Distributors create nothing and exist only to tax their consumers'
The distributors act as a hedge for the creators, the creators get a guaranteed sum for their work and the distributor takes the risk that not enough buyers will be found for that content for them to make a profit.
Increasingly I find most 'content' is designed to get me to watch adverts and is not worth the price.
DRM is a good thing, it is like an adblocker on steroids.
"the most important thing a talent needs " i.e. they have control of the market and outsiders must pay them to get any exposure.
Remove the distrutors and everyone has fair access to your "most important thing" without any leeches in the middle
"as a hedge for the creators" i.e. they are the ones hyping the 90% crap that comes out so you have to watch it all to find the stuff worth watching.
"Increasingly I find most 'content' is designed to get me to watch adverts and is not worth the price." who do you think is paying for and providing the adverts, it isnt the artists it is everyone between the artists and the consumer.
I am all for the creators benefiting from their work but I would just like the option to by pass all the real "freeloaders" acting as middle men. If the artists do good work then then profit by it but the 90% crap that wastes my free time becomes non-profitable and so we end up with 100% good stuff for less then we pay now.
...it's a whole different ballgame to get people to actually use it. I hope that this may give some people a better impression of the importance of open standards. And for the record:
"That survey was sent out yesterday and member organizations, who pay an annual fee that varies from $2,250 for the smallest non-profits to $77,000 for larger corporations"
I don't consider "pay to win" very much of a reliable standard to begin with. Sounds to me that the more money you contribute the more things you got to say. But how does that ensure quality standards to be uphold?
Yet here also lies a bit of a concern. Google is one of those members and they got big pockets. Next you'll also have the Chrome browser which pretty much dominates the market. So, uhm, yeah, it's fun and all that Chrome is an open source browser but it's most definitely not much of an open and free standard. I'm pretty sure that when this vote gets accepted, and why shouldn't it considering the massive monetary interests, then it'll be a matter of time before Chrome and therefor a huge area of the Net has been switched to this new standard.
Basically putting Google into the same position Microsoft once was when they dictated the market. Major difference being that this doesn't involve one proprietary product but a full blown allegedly shared environment.
You're absolutely right.
Mozilla was reluctant to adopt it for a long time but they finally caved in. They had no choice because they would be crushed by the propaganda unleashed by Microsoft and Google. Look at the bad name BitTorrent protocol got by being associated with piracy. Imagine the two whispering left and right that Firefox browser is being used only by pirates that steal content and they have a duty to protect the public etc.
I guess now Fedora and Debian must start working on another browser that excludes DRM because they can't publish the source code of Firefox, Chrome and others that will adhere to DME standard.
"I guess now Fedora and Debian must start working on another browser that excludes DRM"
resurrect 'iceweasel' - that's what it was, a few years ago, before debian merged it back with firefox (for 'pure open source' reasons). So we've been there before.
Indeed. If this extension is supported on Linux, and the Linux is using open source video and audio drivers, these can always be modified to allow copying.
I'm not sure DRM is intended to piss off customers (though it is annoying that it curtails what used to be 'normal' activities, like lending a DVD to a mate), I think it's primarily intended to annoy pirates!
"I think it's primarily intended to annoy pirates!"
It won't annoy organised pirates, because they can afford a solution to circumvent DRM in bulk, It won't annoy casual downloaders, because they get their DRM-free stuff from organised pirates.
It will annoy folk who believe that if they've paid the manufacturer or creator for something, then they have the right to make backup copies to guard against the DRM server being turned off (Zune) or the book they have on their Kindle being withdrawn (1984).
It's usually the little guy that gets screwed by this sort of thing.
"I think it's primarily intended to annoy pirates!"
like 30 seconds of anti-piracy warnings with law enforcement symbols, filling my entire TV screen, at the begining of NEARLY! EVERY! DVD! I! OWN! (and I own quite a few)
Notable exception, Excel Saga, which actually lampoons it.
like 30 seconds of anti-piracy warnings with law enforcement symbols, filling my entire TV screen, at the begining of NEARLY! EVERY! DVD! I! OWN! (and I own quite a few)
You mean like... :
(I had seen a better version (same graphic but higher quality) somewhere, can't find the link today)
First, the W3C shouldn't be doing this, but the W3C is also irrelevant. It hasn't been a forum for engineers and leading industry professionals for a long time, and that's why its initiatives have become bloated, unimplimented, and standards have become ad hoc or de facto instead of guided by a deliberate design process.
That said, they (all the corporations) have been shoving DRM down people's throats and... other... orifices, for a long time now. It's inevitable it will eventually get into browsers, standards committee approved or not. And for people thinking boycotting websites or companies will somehow be effective, I've got some bad news: There's never been a successful boycott of a website or a large company that amounted to anything, because people aren't organized politically. Not just here in 'Murica, home of the yellow-haired angry groundhog, but anywhere. There is nowhere in Europe where there is a powerful organization with a strong membership base and enough influence that it could tell enough people to blacklist a website or corporation enough to matter.
I'm ideologically opposed to DRM, but I'm also a realist. We lost this fight, a long time ago. At this point in the game, it would take substantial resources and an unprecidented groundswell of public support and political engagement to make a difference. My country can't even organize itself to make health care a basic government service, and this is something that is quite literally life or death. The idea of people organizing to fight back against DRM, or for their own privacy, is as fanciful as selling plane tickets to the moon.
Which by the by, people thought would be a thing back in the 40s and 50s. We also thought we'd have the flying car, "learning caps" that would transmit knowledge, and a cure for cancer. None of those things happened, but the contemporaries of the era made the same mistake we did: They thought the trends in technology they were seeing at the time would continue, and that people would see good ideas and work to make them a reality.
You know, like the internet... we thought it would spread democracy and knowledge throughout the world, uniting humanity in a way never before seen. What we got was porn, cat videos, and the cancer that is social media. If I'd been amongst the creators of the internet in the 70s and 80s and saw what my creation had become... I would be filled either with an insatiable murderous need to tear it all down, or liquor because of my newly-discovered drinking problem.
That's where idealism in technology gets you if you aren't careful. Sad, but true. I'm not saying don't give up on idealism -- indeed, it's only people who have ever tried, that ever made a difference. What I am saying is don't hope that people will follow you. If you're in this field, do it for the love of the work not what you hope it'll be used for. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to be in the right place, at the right time, as the right person, to be the one who starts a paradigm shift towards something better. But for the most part, we can only look on our creations with the same loving eyes that a parent looks upon their child -- they will not turn out the way we expected, and often not even the way we wanted. If you became a parent to get those things, you did it for the wrong reason. All creative acts have this in common.
The music industry went almost universally DRM free after an initial stint using DRM technology, so I don't see why it's impossible for the same thing to happen with the movie/TV industry as well.
That's true, but the consequence is that a lot of artists are being paid almost nothing by the likes of Spotify. It used to be the case that even musicians with quite small followings could make a living selling LPs, but nowadays it's hopeless. Selling CDs whilst busking is probably the only way to get a decent return for recordings.
The money now is in the concerts; you cannot digitise and stream the 'experience'.
Sounds like you need to quit the USA, come to the UK, go down the pub, put your feet up in front of the fire, have a beer (a proper one, none of this larger nonsense) and chillax. We find this soothes almost all of the world's woes. Solving them becomes a problem for tomorrow, not this evening. Perhaps the day after that. Bringing ones chums is optional, though by definition everyone else in the pub is a mate.
Have enough beer and even the price of beer stops being a problem.
"the W3C is also irrelevant. It hasn't been a forum for engineers and leading industry professionals for a long time,"
W3C is a standards body, not a "forum for engineers and leading industry professionals"
"that's why its initiatives have become bloated, unimplimented, and standards have become ad hoc or de facto instead of guided by a deliberate design process"
Nice generalisation - care to name specific initiatives or standards? In my experience, W3C standards have been remarkably coherent, largely thanks to the work of the Technical Architecture Group.
If you're talking about standards bloat, look no further than the HTML5 spec - that's effectively been under the control of WHATWG rather than W3C for over a decade.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've participated in a number of W3C working groups over the last decade and a half, and I'm currently my organisation's representative on W3C's Advisory Committee. In that role, I have already raised formal objections to W3C's involvement with DRM (in the form of EME).
A free user can not be monetized properly.
This EME stuff will make ad-blockers useless. You want to take a look at that malicious Java Script snippet ? Well, tough luck! Web pages will be encrypted by DRM and protected by DMCA so the end user will no longer have a say in what he decides to watch. There's a lot of money to be made, folks!
Its very unlikely that EME stuff will make ad-blockers useless. and it also unlikely that web pages will be encrypted by DRM anytime soon.
Most people use ad-blockers and making them useless will lead to backlash but its very unlikely that EME will stop ad-blockers at all. it seems you have no understanding of what you are saying.
"Its very unlikely that EME stuff will make ad-blockers useless. and it also unlikely that web pages will be encrypted by DRM anytime soon."
You are way behind the times. That started years ago IME, this W3C theatre piece is just documenting a way to make the parts work together so the corporate overlords dont have trouble taking to each other after the Internet becomes fully encrypted and opaque to the slaves.
This is the natural next step from the LetsEncrypt, HTTPS-everywhere, TLS-everything campaign coming from these same few players over and over again. "encrypt everything" is their message - no quarter given. everything. But what does encrypted content actually look like at the technical level ... DRM.
Despite the downvotes, this is exactly the endgame publishers want: end-to-end control over the delivery and presentation of their (precious) content. They may or may not fully achieve it, but we're certainly well on the road towards it: First HTTPS to protect it in transit, now lockdown of the presentation. The final stage will be browsers refusing to display content that's not "approved" (they're already getting antsy about http sites), then we'll be back to the TV delivery model, with a huge cost of entry and only a few big players to control.
"I'll just use a free browser then"... But you'll only be able to view hobby sites with it, as all the mainstream sites will be locked out, so most people won't bother.
"If they block adblockers there will be an outcry"... but the vast majority of people don't care. They happily pay subscription TV services to watch ads, why should the web be any different.
As soon as there's an option to protect sites it will be used, whatever the content. The age of web-TV is coming - sit and consume what's served up by your masters, no looking behind the curtains, no "fake news" from unapproved sources.
Don't agree? Time to accept that the internet is now a utility. Mainstream, regulated, sanitized and in the hands of the big boys. The open internet we grew up with will be like amateur radio - still available to those who care, but very much a fringe interest.
Is it time to leave Earth yet, Pop?
The age of TV web is not coming and the internet will never be a utility. Mainstream, regulated, sanitized and in the hands of the big boys.
NO its not time to accept any of that and never will be.
you should not accept even if all you have said is unlikely to happen.
Wanna bet HTML6 will move the markup behind the EME to prevent online (malware) editing? Remember, Google's on the W3C, AND they produce the most popular browser in Chrome, and Mozilla is more or less forced to follow or become insignificant. Does the term "captive market" ring any bells?
The movie/TV industry isn't interested in providing me with a legal option to purchase and keep video content in my OpenELEC (Linux + Kodi) library, so they won't be losing anything when I (continue to) just pirate whatever movies and TV shows I want.
The music industry went DRM-free years ago. They get my support.
I was going to downvote this, as my Kodi library is entirely full of rips of DVDs/Blu-Rays that I own, but then I remembered what a ballache it is ripping a Blu-Ray (and the occasional Disney DVD, that confuses Handbrake), so I'll be upvoting instead.
The thing that concerns me about EME is that it might be possible to use it to "protect" random assets on websites rather than just "streams." I can foresee companies like my bank holding a meeting where someone says "If we use EME on all the assets on our internet banking website, we can stop people cloning them to use on phishing sites." I don't find it hard to imagine legal and branding departments in large companies wanting to use EME for all elements of their corporate branding online to stop their logo being used in any way they don't like and insisting any site that uses their branding in any form of news also protect it.
Next thing I know, another site stops working on my open source machines. It doesn't matter that the copy of Firefox or Chrome/Chromium I have supports EME on Linux, if the particular plugin a site uses isn't available on my OS then the browser doesn't support it here.
Microsoft have a history of briefing large organisations (movie and TV content producers) that allowing the playback of their content on open source software is unsafe and will lead to their content being stolen because the OS and software are open source and any part of them could be compromised. At the time, this was clearly beneficial to Silverlight and their server products.
I'm not a tunnel-vision penguin-fanboy. I use both Windows and Linux in my business and at home; Each has its strengths and list of available software. I have helped a number of people embrace Linux when it fitted their needs. I've seen a lot of people invest serious numbers of hours in improving open source software and I think the competition if gives to proprietary vendors has improved the quality of both camps' offerings. I don't want to see EME used as a back-door way to hold the adoption of OSS back by denying access to things or functionality from users.
Anyone remember StarForce? I've got several games that I BOUGHT that I can't use because of that wonderful DRM schema that didn't bother to update itself for Windows 7, since they already had my money.
I guess this is kind of good news for video ripping. The scene has gotten very lazy lately and most of what you find is WebDLs anyways. This will just force people to go back to Bluray HD rips like God intended. I'm going to look at this as a positive thing. Zero Fks given.
My opinion: NO for-profit entity should be allowed to influence any Internet rules/regulations. The decision should either be left in the hands of the global technical community, whether they are W3C members or not (remember that W3C members aren't the only ones using the web. Rather, they are a drop in the bucket)...OR the decision should be left to the whole world to decide. Anyone and everyone in the world who pays for Internet connectivity in any way, and anyone who cares to read this new policy in layman's terms, should be allowed a vote.