DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

[phoronix]

Phoronix: DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

The W3C has decided to go ahead and publish the first public draft of the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), a form of Digital Rights Management for HTML5...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM3MDE

[Sonadow]

There's not going to be an Internet without DRM, so while the Free Software Foundation and others may be against EME, it's at least a standardization on HTML5 rather than all the different DRM protection schemes in Flash, Silverlight, browser plug-ins, etc.

Brutal truth indeed.

If we are going to deal with DRM in our lives, the least they can do is to standardize its implementation.

[GreatEmerald]

Well, if that can make Netflix available on Linux, I suppose it's a good thing... Some choice is better than none overall.

I'm still extremely annoyed at the whole video DRM situation here. It's impossible to watch any films on Linux. DVDs use paranoid DRM that prevents OSS players from playing them (apparently OSS is just too transparent to get the certification needed to display the content). Blu-ray discs use that same DRM, just ten times more paranoid and ingrained within the discs themselves. So no disc media is available for Linux. That leaves streaming video... Oh wait, Netflix doesn't support Linux. Why? DRM! That again can't run on Linux due to it being OSS! And overall there are very few and only very local streaming video providers for some odd reason.

Once again, I want to give a shout-out to the developer of Lib-ray, for an interesting project that aims to provide Blu-ray capability, but without DRM. I hope the project is a success, so even if it doesn't reach much popularity, it will at least provide an option. Hopefully someone out there will realise that DRM like that is stupid and hurts their sales, instead of helping them.

[89c51]

People will continue to pirate content DRM or not.

It will crack eventually.

[Sonadow]

Well, if that can make Netflix available on Linux, I suppose it's a good thing... Some choice is better than none overall.

I'm still extremely annoyed at the whole video DRM situation here. It's impossible to watch any films on Linux. DVDs use paranoid DRM that prevents OSS players from playing them (apparently OSS is just too transparent to get the certification needed to display the content). Blu-ray discs use that same DRM, just ten times more paranoid and ingrained within the discs themselves. So no disc media is available for Linux. That leaves streaming video... Oh wait, Netflix doesn't support Linux. Why? DRM! That again can't run on Linux due to it being OSS! And overall there are very few and only very local streaming video providers for some odd reason.

That's why specialized appliances like intelligent Blu-ray players with access to online media content exist.

The whole point is to make it easy on the user by sinking some money (about $200) into a black box that plays virtually everything. I bought, at huge cost, one of those smart TVs that offer access to online streaming content and a blu-ray player for my parents and both of them essentially serve all their media needs, so it's a fair investment.

[Sonadow]

People will continue to pirate content DRM or not.

It will crack eventually.

Can you think of a better way to stop people from pirating content?

Even humble indie bundle games get pirated.

[krofna]

Brutal truth indeed.

If we are going to deal with DRM in our lives, the least they can do is to standardize its implementation.

That way we can at least standardize a way to break DRM.

[Fenrin]

Can you think of a better way to stop people from pirating content?

Even humble indie bundle games get pirated.

watermarks are a alternative to DRM. The ORBX.js codec - Mozilla and Otoy announced recently - will make use of it.

Look ma, no plugins! Streaming web video with just JavaScript

[Guest]

I think this is bad news.

EME does not bring standardized DRM to HTML5. It only standardizes JavaScript API to access CDM (Content Decryption Module), which is part of DRM-system. W3C is NOT standardizing CDM technology. So unless someone provides CDM for Linux that Hollywood trusts, you wont be able to watch Netflix with Linux (without using Wine). If they haven't trusted Linux earlier, why would they trust it now? For example, Voddler has no rights to show films on Linux platforms See this:

http://www.voddler.com/en/help/topic/2788189942297113506/

And since CDMs aren't standardized, they are more like plugins. What makes them different from plugins? Why not use Flash instead?

I think they have the right to use DRM if they want but W3C shouldn't be standardizing APIs that encourage creating and using of proprietary, nonstandard plugins.

And please stop thinking that web needs content industry. It's the other way around (if you ask me). They would bring content to web with, or without DRM. If they wouldn't they'd lose money. Please read myth 3. from here for example:

http://freeculture.org/blog/2013/04/23/dont-let-the-myths-fool-you-the-w3cs-plan-for-drm-in-html5-is-a-betrayal-to-all-web-users/

I hope this draft doesn't go further.

W3C blog post:

http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html

[89c51]

Can you think of a better way to stop people from pirating content?

Even humble indie bundle games get pirated.

No. And i really understand people that want to "protect" their creations and get money from them. But content (be it games, movies, music, text etc) has no value on itself since it can be copied and shared easily. If you want to make money you have to add something to your content that will make it desirable for someone to pay for it. In some cases this is easy in others its not.