DRM now a formal Web recommendation after protest vote fails Anti-piracy and anti-copying protections are now formally part of the World Wide Web after an effort to vote down content controls at the WWW's standards body failed. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has been embroiled in controversy for five years over the introduction of the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification …
Only a matter of time before the entire "web" (web is dead, sadly, increasingly replaced with non-linkable dynamic pages) is consumed by this sort of thing. Anyone who believes that the industries will stop with baked-in video encryption is sorely mistaken. Looking forward to our future where the browser is required to disable PrtScn or whatever else at the behest of bigcorporatesite.com.
Hopefully not because this provides a standard framework for multimedia DRM. This specifies a standard API that should allow browsers to access decryption modules for audio and video. In essence, this is supposed to create a standardized framework to replace Flash and Silverlight - not place DRM around HTML code
HTML code should never be DRM'd. If HTML code was locked behind proprietary DRM packages, that eliminates open-source web browsers and also destroys accessibility tools, not to mention apps that reformat pages for offline reading and mobile rendering.
Also the web is not dead.
Flash is dead.
As is Silverlight (even more so).
They have been for quite a while now, over a year since outside-plugins were turned off by Chrome and Firefox, for instance. Flash got a special reprieve for a while but that's gone too.
It'll be a year before everyone is used a browser with this stuff in, and video-slinging sites have upgraded to support them.
This places DRM at the forefront of browser-support, architecture compatibility and security. It's a damn stupid idea. Is the DRM going to be supported on, say, a Raspberry Pi? A Steambox? A Linux laptop? Probably not. So the platform-independence of a modern web browser is abandoned once again so people can watch cats on YouTube and charge people for that microsecond of pop song in the background.
And the web is dead for the most part, in the context of the OP. You can't link to anything any more because it's all tucked behind dynamic menus and fancy tricks that when you copy/paste the URL either don't work, carry a ton of information you don't want to publicise, or just link to the front page only rather than the exact bit you meant. As a "web" it's more like a signpost. "Yeah, it's over there somewhere."
This just publishes a standard for DRM. Noone is forced to use it. Content publishers have just implemented their own solutions in the absence of a common standard. Not quite sure what the fuss is about.
Better the publishers implement a standard through the standards body than go off and fork their own.
Anyone who believes that the industries will stop with baked-in video encryption is sorely mistaken
Probably way past time we 'forked' the internet anyway - it's become increasingly a shopping /TV channel with filled with propaganda and looney mainstream fringe junk myths, lies and idiocy instead of useful information of benefit to humanity.
Oh, and bring back Technocracy.
Probably way past time we 'forked' the internet anyway
This is already underway. Too many people are invested in injecting politics into everything, and purging from their userbases those with whom they disagree. Naturally, this has resulted in the rise of multiple microblogging services, multiple web video services, multiple web encyclopedia services, and so on.
When the Information Age began, I don't think anyone imagined that information would come to be weaponized, at least not in liberal western democracies. It makes me wonder if this great age will end with a bang or a whimper.
Probably way past time we 'forked' the internet anyway - it's become increasingly a shopping /TV channel with filled with propaganda and looney mainstream fringe junk myths, lies and idiocy instead of useful information of benefit to humanity.
Oh, and bring back Technocracy.
Oh we could just go back to gopher. Archie and veronica are dead, but Veronica-2 is probably still alive although haven't checked recently.
Yes, I still have gopher running.
"Don't fret. The corporations will be happy."
That's it precisely, it's just for them and their bottom line. This will be of no use for part time artists and musicians like me, we'll not be allowed to use this sort of protection for our works, we'll still have our work ripped off 'cos we don't have the clout of the big corps, to be able to protect our works.
While I like the idea of DRM, it's only in the interest of big corps who don't give a monkey's about the little guys, so it'll be a waste of time and it'll be bypassed quicker than you can download a movie off a torrent site on a Virgin 300MB home connection!
How can it be cracked when the CPU controlling your CPU stops the information / program you are using to try to attack the DRM module? Remember, you can't trust your system either since it answers to the vendor and their partners, not you...
There will come a time and place where there is no way to access the cultural history of the West outside of an active rental agreement. We're real close now, but no one really cares and certainly no one is willing to actually a.) forgo content or b.) spend money to make DRM-free content.
Oh well.
Its best to ignore the downvotes unless they are mostly downvotes. When they are all or mostly downvotes you can usually work out why? And perhaps reassess your knowledge/opinion. Thats my take on it anyway.
I usually get a couple of downvotes (even when just passing on a related anecdote) which I suspect are either:
a. because I pissed people off once when I trolled a 'Year of Linux on the Desktop' or 'Linux is much more secure than anything else' thread when I was pissed
b. My views on Brexit
If its a vaguely controversial subject and you have an opinion for oneside or the other you will get downvoted.
And since you asked - I think I downvoted you at work earlier. I didn't reply at the time because . . work.
"There will come a time and place where there is no way to access the cultural history of the West outside of an active rental agreement. We're real close now, but no one really cares and certainly no one is willing to actually a.) forgo content or b.) spend money to make DRM-free content."
I down voted this because its too dystopian and also fails to take the concerns of the publisher into account. Cards on the table. I absorb a lot of content. I pay for a lot (various subscriptions, plus cinema and gig visits). I am also well acquainted with BitTorrent. I buy and read a lot of books. I also usually end up forgoing content I would like to see that isn't available via any of the above.
I think a dystopian future where any or all of those are no longer possible is farfetched. I don't think its close. I do think people care. I do actually forego content. People do actually make DRM free content (nothing I want to watch usually but there you go).
I am against DRM as I like to be able to absorb content that I haven't subscribed to and is held by a monopoly (looking at you Sky). But I would never question the providers right to monetise their investment by preventing people that haven't subscribed stealing from them. Thats a silly argument.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I'm still somewhat new here so wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something.
While I also sit on both sides of the fence, so to speak, I'm not sure that dystopian future is really avoidable. The biggest problem is that circumventing the DRM is a felony, so by the time the perpetual copyright (120+ years over here) expires there is likely no chance the media will be available outside of illegal actions. I think in general content providers are smart enough to know not to compete with themselves (see, for instance, the Disney Vault), and it may be financially "smarter" to simply destroy the content versus allowing it to fall officially into the public domain.
Honestly, what I'd like to see is a linking of DRM with loss of copyright privileges -- if you choose to only distribute content with DRM attached then you don't have a copyright when the DRM is finally broken or the protection of things like the DMCA, while if you rely on copyright you have to sell at least one high quality version of the content to the public via non-DRMed media but you get full copyright privileges / DMCA protection. This would seem to balance both sides' needs far better than what we currently have, but alas these kinds of reforms are not possible due to the Berne convention (treaties are all but impossible to change). :-/
Linux, 'cause if you can't access common cultural content using a libre system something's amiss!
Circumventing DRM may be a criminal offense. That is a problem with laws such as DMCA in the US. The incentive to apply DRM is a result of copyright law and exacerbated by its grant (in the US) of practically unlimited duration as against the much more limited grant probably envisioned in the US Constitution and implemented in early copyright law.
The blame belongs with the governments that authorize it, not the organizations that establish technical standards and the businesses that implement the standards or use the implemented DRM to protect their copyrighted material. Going after the standards organizations and the DRM developers and users is misplaced and diverts activity from the appropriate target.
The choice is not whether there will be DRM, but how many implementations there will be and how long it will be usable by copyright holders. The real question is whether copyright law distributes benefits justly among the creators and consumers of copyrightable material. That is not something for the W3C but for the governments that enact copyright laws.
"...while if you rely on copyright you have to sell at least one high quality version of the content to the public via non-DRMed media but you get full copyright privileges / DMCA protection."
Doesn't the Library of Congress fulfill that by its obligation to hold a copy of every American-made work?
"Is that copy DRM-free such that it can be freely and legally copied when the copyright expires?"
Jury's out, but I think they CAN compel copyright holders to provide a means to unlock locked content as and when necessary since their remit means they must be able to ACCESS it on demand.
While I understand this concept and see that it is grounded in content rights, I can't help but think of other things that webmasters and server administrators are already saddled with. The basis for this, while sound, doesn't address the deeper issue - the fact that piracy is something that some end users do, for varying reasons (or more appropriately called excuses). Webmasters and server admins have to deal with the lack of standards (or even an RFC) for things like wildcard domains. End users feel the brunt of that one with different code from different browsers (and Chromes method is the absolute worst). This entire evolution from Web 2.0 to 3.0 (or what the rest of you would call the HTML 5 Standard being adhered to) has been a huge mess. It's time for some REAL standards to appear.
"The basis for this, while sound, doesn't address the deeper issue - the fact that piracy is something that some end users do, for varying reasons (or more appropriately called excuses). "Is it really an excuse when, let's say, you want to purchase a PK for Office 2010 from MS, but they refuse to sell you one? Isn't it more a case that MS has a very poor excuse for giving you no option but to pirate and run the concomitant risk of malware infection?
Apples and oranges. DRM mentioned here is for content that is viewed in a browser. However, I'll address your "orange". If you can't find a vendor that still has a copy of Office 2010 that you can buy today, then you aren't looking hard enough. Wanting to buy it from Microsoft when it is in extended support and not mainstream support is your second problem.
"Apples and oranges... If you can't find a vendor that still has a copy of Office 2010 that you can buy today, then you aren't looking hard enough. Wanting to buy it from Microsoft when it is in extended support and not mainstream support is your second problem."I quoted your words and responded to them. In what way is that apples and oranges?
Sure you can buy a PK from any number of vendors who will come up as advertisers on a Google search. Problem is, they are not legitimate, issued by Microsoft PKs. If you know of a legitimate source, let us know.
Lots of software I use is long out of support. That's not a problem. Software doesn't suddenly start malfunctioning when it's past some arbitrary use-by date.
"It's apples and oranges because we're discussing DRM for media in the browser not extended software support."I was discussing Digital Rights Management following someone else's post. There's more to DRM than browser-based DRM and it also acts against the interests of the consumer. BTW, who appointed you as comment police?
Software doesn't suddenly start malfunctioning when it's past some arbitrary use-by date.
No - but it does stop getting updated. Are you happy that something as massive and buggy as an office suite that you are using is no longer maintained? Especially MS Office with it's long and inglorious history of hosting exploits that can own your machine?
"Are you happy that something as massive and buggy as an office suite that you are using is no longer maintained?"The least buggy version of Word was 95. Are you saying the current version is less massive and buggy because, nominally at least, it's "maintained"? I think web browsers contribute more to the hosting of exploits that can pwn my machine.
Lock down your favorite [me personally is now opera, also vivaldi, firefox, screw google].
Let's see adguard, ublock org, privacy badger, scriptblock on a linux debian VBox.
Half of my news site story video does not work.
Either a never ending spinning circle or message, "we can not deliver our 'product' on your system".
Oh, I'm over 60 and ready very well.
What is it with the young people that type and can not write, and listen/watch instead or reading.
And now our nazi-in-chief has his dumb-ucation head destroying the rest of teaching.
This world is so so so so trashed.
No one to blame but ourselves.
"We need to figure out the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy" -- Bill Maher
It's sad if Tim has sold out to highest bidder. Worse yet if he's done so for nothing, out of naivety.
I'd rather have a browser plugin than obligatory module that streamlines DRM deployment and turns nuisance into commodity everyone expected/took for granted. I've disabled playback of DRM content in my FF and so far I have not noticed anything missing. I can't be sure this will continue with compromise to standards. I bet China would also like to add users name to this DRM scheme.
Since the system no longer appears wide open, they may consider renaming to W2C.
When browsers implement this "feature" can it be disabled in the browsers? Forcing the video/media with it to not play at all?
I sure hope so! If I can, it'll be the first thing disabled for the same reasons I don't run flash and haven't for several years now.
If it cannot be disabled then I'll have have to make my home browser like my stores EPOS system, unable to play any media whatsoever. But the store has it due to the store not having a BBC License... it also has the added benefit of confusing the hell out of the iplayer and youtube websites .. you have no html5? you have no flash? what is this witchcraft?!
(You'd need root to re-enable media playback, which the BBC hitmen do not have, they've tried but failed, about:config will simply show media settings as locked and disabled)
Okay, comment made, more coffee here I come!
Just wait until it is mandated by National Governments requiring 'Approved' browsers that eliminate 'extremist material' (i.e. anyone who disagrees with them).
Hell, they could even try considering disenfrancising Voters who make critical remarks about them on Social Media.
No, because the First Amendment in this case falls to the content creators themselves (IOW, the people who WANT DRM). Not only that, but Copyright IS a congressional mandate under Article I, Section 8, so establishing rules concerning copyright IS a direct federal responsibility.
IOW, the law's on big media's side, not ours.
"When browsers implement this "feature" can it be disabled in the browsers? Forcing the video/media with it to not play at all?"
Well that'll be up to Google/Mozilla/Opera/Apple.
I should say yes in most cases, just as they give you options regarding treatment of cookies, etc today.
Unless you're not being heard from the top table. It's one thing to take the ball and go home, it's another to take the ball because no one's even recognizing you exist. If their answer to, "But the privacy!" is "Screw you!" you've basically been declared persona non grata.
How can copyright be enforced uniformly across the web when copyright rules vary from region to region?
Simple. The media companies will buy their way through the various national assemblies/parliaments until the copyright period matches their desired duration[1]..
[1] Life plus however long the media company desires. Want to read a book from 1500? Well - it's been grandfathered back into copyright so that version you downloaded from Project Gutenburg is now illegal..
What about things like the US Constitution where such grandfathering is strictly forbidden (Article I, Section 9, no retroactive or ex post facto acts allowed)? It would take an Amendment to do that, and Congress is way too divided to agree on anything enough to get the necessary two-thirds majority. And what kind of crisis can you manufacture to remove the retroactive restriction?
@Charles 9
And what kind of crisis can you manufacture to remove the retroactive restriction?
Terra-ists. They hate us for our freedoms. That's why we're taking away your freedoms. So the terra-ists won't hate us any more. That's why we have to retroactively remove the bits of the Constitution that enumerate our freedoms.
Simples.
Hint: see the horribly-contrived acronym that is the USA PATRIOT Act.
If that were true, we'd already be seeing 4K BluRay rips, but so far the only rips have been web rips. Also haven't heard much about pirated Xbox One or PS4 games. Seems to me the rights holders are doing their homework and finding nigh-bulletproof systems to protect their content, unless you can prove me wrong.
This post has been deleted by its author
And so, the goose that laid the golden eggs was finally slaughtered.
We only got to the scale we have today because the Net was open and accessible to all. Creating a DRM layer will mean that there now will be three Nets rather than two: a Darknet, the Net as we know it and the corporate DRM-protected version where the stench of decay is already wafting from before it's even built.
The next step is self-evident: prioritisation of DRM content. Bye bye Net neutrality.
"We only got to the scale we have today because the Net was open and accessible to all."
That's arguable. Some would say it was the commercial interests that drew the masses to the web in the first place: turn the Web into the next Sears Catalog, for example. Well, that and porn, of course.
Point is, money still talks, so if you tried to keep the Web open, commercial interests would simply "fork you" and go their own way, like they have with Flash and so on. Even if Flash were to disappear, they'll just enforce something else in its place, and do you think you have the cojones to take on the mass of customers that regularly use Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.? IOW, what you describe would happen anyway, only in a different way, and since the masses follow the commercial interest...well, let's just say, you're outvoted.
"The next step is self-evident: prioritisation of DRM content. Bye bye Net neutrality."
Google has already shown the way to beat Net Neutrality: private nets. As soon as it's financially worthwhile to do it, all the big Net companies will start deploying private nets to shortcut their way around the Net. Net neutrality soon becomes inapplicable because they can bypass most of the Net. Why do you think the likes of DHL, UPS, and FedEx keep their own vehicle fleets? Same thought process.
Sorry to hear that. I don't like DRM at all.
As a video lover, I'd like to watch iTunes movies in all kinds of devices too.And of course, iTunes movies are having DRM, fortunately, nowadays there are many DRM removal software which can help us get the job done to remove DRM easily. Usually I have to use a DRmare M4V Converter to help me remove the DRM from my videos.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
