Truly Stupid Ideas: Adding DRM To HTML5
from the it-burns dept
You would have thought by now that people would understand that DRM is not only a bad idea, but totally unnecessary: Apple dropped DRM from music downloads in 2009 and seems to be making ends meet. Despite these obvious truths, the stupidity that is DRM continues to spread. Here, for example, is a particularly stupid example of DRM stupidity, as revealed by Manu Sporny:
A few days ago, a new proposal was put forward in the HTML Working Group (HTML WG) by Microsoft, Netflix, and Google to take DRM in HTML5 to the next stage of standardization at W3C.
After all, this is exactly what Web users have been crying out for: "just give us DRM for the Web, and our lives will be complete...."
Sporny runs through some technical reasons why this is doomed to failure -- little things like sending decryption keys in the clear -- and points out the awful re-balkanization of the Web that it would cause:
The EME [Encrypted Media Extensions] specification does not specify a DRM scheme in the specification, rather it explains the architecture for a DRM plug-in mechanism. This will lead to plug-in proliferation on the Web. Plugins are something that are detrimental to inter-operability because it is inevitable that the DRM plugin vendors will not be able to support all platforms at all times. So, some people will be able to view content, others will not.
He also notes a fundamental problem with the following Use Case for the proposed technology:
What use cases does this support?
That clearly implies that when people are not sharing their own content with family and friends, then they are indeed adversaries:
Everything from user-generated content to be shared with family (user is not an adversary) to online radio to feature-length movies.This "user is not an adversary" text can be found in the first question about use cases. It insinuates that people that listen to radio and watch movies online are potential adversaries. As a business owner, I think that’s a terrible way to frame your customers.
This is the fundamental reason why DRM is doomed and should be discarded: the only people it annoys are the ones who have tried to support creators by acquiring legal copies. How stupid is that?
Thinking of the people that are using the technology that you’re specifying as "adversaries" is also largely wrong. 99.999% of people using DRM-based systems to view content are doing it legally. The folks that are pirating content are not sitting down and viewing the DRM stream, they have acquired a non-DRM stream from somewhere else, like Mega or The Pirate Bay, and are watching that.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And wasn't one of the great features of HTML5 the ability to dump Flash as a required plug-in for viewing video? DRM is a giant step backward in web technology, in epic proportions.
And just think of how many malware, virus, adware and who-knows-what other kinds of crap will be buried in DRM plug-ins.
Oh yeah - how about MPAA and RIAA spyware - the ideal payload for that crowd of trustworthy advocates of turning back time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All browsers implement proprietary functionality not part the of a ratified HTML spec. Generally, what gets used becomes the standard and the spec catches up to that.
I'd argue that proprietary functionality within IE(6) was a huge win for Microsoft. Many enterprises built apps on IE6, effectively locking enterprises into IE6 and effectively killing most of the browser competition. Of course, as this happened, IE progress ceased for many years. That is bad for consumers--but was good for Microsoft.
This lack of progress paved the way for new competitors such as Firefox and Chrome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure IE6 caused all kinds of problems in the enterprise and to companies that wrote code with IE6 in mind. If it was so successful where is it now. Oh, I remember Microsoft dropped it, which is what all companies do with their successful ideas. In the end companies that wrote IE6 code found it raised their Help desk workload too much.
Also it didn't lock users into IE, they simply ran two browsers IE for the IE6 coded sites and FF or Chrome everywhere else. I still have a plugin for Firefox that will use IE as the rendering engine for certain sites I specify, but it all happens within the FF tab. (Yes I still have internal sites that like IE and balk at anything else (Switches, routers, and phone systems come to mind).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually Firefox wasn't a new competitor. It was the legacy of Netscape, a superior browser that got bullied out of market by Microsoft. And in the long-run, Microsoft's asshattery lost.
So while Microsoft, for a brief period in history, had a "huge win", their proprietary offerings, coupled with their monopolistic methods, was a massive fail.
I'd also argue that had they not forced their way into lead position, Netscape would have flourished as a business.
So to claim your position is, in my view, blind to the reality of what transpired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
drm = $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This means ad-blocking software will no longer be legal because Google will wrap its ads in DRM.
This is what the proposal is for, not the advocate against piracy.
Ironic: Google will stand up against SOPA but then screw everyone over pulling this crap.
DMCA: Don't Mess with Corporate America.
Stands today more than it did when I first came up with the slogan in the late 90s.
I hate to say it but "I told you so!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tragically, as someone who specializes in forensic SEO audits, I can assure you the web has become a massive mess of cloud based services pathetically slowing down more and more sites every day, whether it be CDN, or widget based. Images, scripts, it's all moving off to third party servers.
Almost every audit I've performed in the past six months has had a speed problem directly as a result of the otherwise "minor" lag involved with browsers having to call the initial code set, then go back to the server, and off to third party networks over and over again for each additional chunk of code that serves up that which is stored on outside networks.
So at least from that perspective, tragically, the model could very well become mainstream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) is fairly effective at stopping the copying process and in many cases destroying the copies as well.
Of course there would be some collateral damage involved but anything to stop those damned pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You found me out.
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're going that route, might as well go right to the source and save the rest of your bombs for another day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just for the historybooks, USA has researched electrical pulse guns that takes out a specific building (a directed EMP pulse more or less) with & without killing hte electronics themselves.
So the tech to eliminate specific targets is a reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, but you are forgetting one thing. The uptake of HTML5 will not be driven by the end user, but by the content creator.
The consumer likely won't know (or care) that a site is using HTML5 code, so their won't be too much backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far better than adjusting licencing models and other obstacles that discourage people from consuming more content legally. /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And why is Netflix trying to be in charge of HTML?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side note
It's often noted around here that TPB and Mega have "legit"(non-infringing) users, too; but even an enlightened, insider writer, when in need of a villainous example, will cite them as a den of infringers. Can you blame the lay pundits for making them into pirate poster children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side note
Its like a street corner in a shady neighborhood, sometimes you can buy a hot dog at the corner of Mega Ave and Pirate Bay Bvld from a legitimate vendor. Sometimes you can get crack and hookers. To ignore either set of clientele is to avoid looking at the whole picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side note
Also also, sorry for the double post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side note
Its like a street corner in a shady neighborhood, sometimes you can buy a hot dog at the corner of Mega Ave and Pirate Bay Bvld from a legitimate vendor. Sometimes you can get crack and hookers. To ignore either set of clientele is to avoid looking at the whole picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was doing good till this part. I don't think he meant it in the same way as the MAFIAA (implying the purpose of the services is just to share copyrighted stuff) it can and will be interpreted that way.
In any case, the article makes very valid points. As for me, if I stuble upon some DRM plugin or DRMed portion of a site I'll simply go without. When I file share I may be compelled to buy the content I see if worth it so I'm often a GAINED sale. When I hit a DRM wall I'm most certainly a lost sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it like JS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My $.02
I do appreciate seeing Netflix in on the discussion, since they are probably the single biggest instance of DRM licensed content. They are kind of stuck in the middle, of wanting to offer content/services to users, and having to appease the content gods requiring DRM schemes. There's enough trouble in even getting content licenses, without DRM would make it far too difficult at this time.
My biggest concern here is that they avoid the OS level plugin systems of old. I thought that NaCl was a good idea when released, and if integrated seamlessly could be very good... worst you would have to do is "close the tab" to get out of a rogue site... instead of it infecting your system with malware. Further, there has been a lot of effort in terms of improving security with JS integration, and using the same API interfaces for video/audio pre-processing combined with something like NaCl could be good, without the need for full-os level integration.
I do *not* want to see another Silverlight/Moonlight instance where MS licenses the codecs for non-windows (and mac), but without any DRM, effectively making it useless for people on linux, or generic STBs (set-top-boxes, Raspberry Pi, etc) wanting to access content sites like Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not, I'm not too worried, not yet.
It's just a proposal. It might go somewhere, it might not.
We'll see.
If it goes somewhere, expect google to lose traffic fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd wait and see what is truly proposed and how this DRM is used before I would right it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and
Are at odds. Of course it limited people. You have to have a special player, hardware or software, which means you were limited to a specific subset. Which means that the odds were pretty good you'd have to stop using the player you preferred. You also have to check in periodically to update licenses.
Most of the benefits you list are not due to the DRM at all. I have all of those benefits with my music without Rhapsody, or DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How many players can you listen to Spotify tracks in? Relatively few. Only those participating in the API, which remains very limited.
How many players could you listen to Rhapsody DRM tracks in? A lot. Rhapsody, Windows Media Player, Winamp, Real Player, and more. You can't listen to Spotify on portable media players. You can with Rhapsody.
The benefits I listed are directly due to DRM. No subscription service without DRM can offer those features.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is just patently wrong. You only listed four "advantages" of DRM. All can be done better without it.
You could actually access your files. Without DRMat all, not just ones that include special support.
You could easily mix in your collection with the subscription tracks. Of course. I don't see how DRM enables this.
You could actually back up your subscription tracks effectively. Again, without DRM there's nothing that would stop you from doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could actually access your files. Without DRM, there's nothing to stop you from doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Play them on any player at all, no need for any special support.
Two editing problems in a row. I'm backing away from the keyboard now. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any kind of DRM invades property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you still pay the full price for the subscribed content, which is why I find this kind of crap from Steam outrageous, arms together with the "software is licensed, not sold" crap.
I never seen "License" buttons or labels in any (web)shop, only "Buy"/"Purchase". Which looks like a purchase, cost like a purchase is a purchase.
And fuck you if you want to "alter the deal" after I bought the stuff, brought home, opened the shrinkwrap, opened the case, run the installer and slap me a maybe-maybe not legal EULA. Because if I refuse the BS in it, I can't bring it back to the retail and get my money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need for DRM in HTML
You know, I have never wanted DRM on any of my content to be shared with family. Generally, if anything, I want them to be able to reshare it with extended family or even friends of the family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really surprising
Despite being debunked people also still buy copper bracelets for arthritis. It doesn't matter if it works or not, because they're sure if they clap hard enough Tinkerbell���℞℃Ω will live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This doesn't make HTML5 much worse
This is just another blemish in an already ugly and objectionable "standard".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This doesn't make HTML5 much worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preposterous
It's boggles the mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customers are Adversaries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Customers are Adversaries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a plumber decided he wouldn't come into my home until I remove all the sharp/blunt objects in my home so it'd be harder for me to kill him I'd say "fuck you" and find a different plumber.
Also, it's saying my purchase of a product doesn't factor into who should control it. Which is FUCKING BULLSHIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use case: sharing with your family
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use case: sharing with your family
In case you live with someone who thinks site like TechDirt, and people like Aaron Swartz are heroic or have anything but a complete lack of morals and ethical views.
because you can't risk your relative stealing the content you paid for and anyone with THAT kind of attitude is going to do so if you don't DRM that shit!
obviously. #duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Use case: sharing with your family
See? It all makes perfect sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, it doesn't matter what the WHAT-WG says. Google has ultimate authority over HTML5. Whatever it adds to Chrome will end up in Safari (now just a fancy UI over Chrome anyways) and then Mozilla will be pressured to play catch-up.
It doesn't matter though if Mozilla implements it anyways. They'll implement a different version where the only difference is that the code says "moz" instead of "webkit". Only half of the sites that use the Webkit version will even bother adding the Mozilla version too.
And now you see why I got out of the web developer business. >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truly Stupid Ideas: Adding DRM To HTML5 from the it-burns dept
from the it-burns dept
You would have thought by now that people would understand that DRM is not only a bad idea, but totally unnecessary: Apple dropped DRM from music downloads in 2009 and seems to be making ends meet. Despite these obvious truths, the stupidity that is DRM continues to spread. Here, for example, is a particularly stupid example of DRM stupidity, as revealed by Manu Sporny:
A few days ago, a new proposal was put forward in the HTML Working Group (HTML WG) by Microsoft, Netflix, and Google to take DRM in HTML5 to the next stage of standardization at W3C.
After all, this is exactly what Web users have been crying out for: "just give us DRM for the Web, and our lives will be complete...."
Sporny runs through some technical reasons why this is doomed to failure -- little things like sending decryption keys in the clear -- and points out the awful re-balkanization of the Web that it would cause:
The EME [Encrypted Media Extensions] specification does not specify a DRM scheme in the specification, rather it explains the architecture for a DRM plug-in mechanism. This will lead to plug-in proliferation on the Web. Plugins are something that are detrimental to inter-operability because it is inevitable that the DRM plugin vendors will not be able to support all platforms at all times. So, some people will be able to view content, others will not.
He also notes a fundamental problem with the following Use Case for the proposed technology:
What use cases does this support?
Everything from user-generated content to be shared with family (user is not an adversary) to online radio to feature-length movies.
That clearly implies that when people are not sharing their own content with family and friends, then they are indeed adversaries:
This "user is not an adversary" text can be found in the first question about use cases. It insinuates that people that listen to radio and watch movies online are potential adversaries. As a business owner, I think that�s a terrible way to frame your customers.
Thinking of the people that are using the technology that you�re specifying as "adversaries" is also largely wrong. 99.999% of people using DRM-based systems to view content are doing it legally. The folks that are pirating content are not sitting down and viewing the DRM stream, they have acquired a non-DRM stream from somewhere else, like Mega or The Pirate Bay, and are watching that.
This is the fundamental reason why DRM is doomed and should be discarded: the only people it annoys are the ones who have tried to support creators by acquiring legal copies. How stupid is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]