Disappointing: Tim Berners-Lee Defends DRM In HTML 5
from the he-should-know-better dept
We recently wrote about the truly stupid idea of building DRM into HTML5. At SXSW this week, web inventor Tim Berners-Lee was asked about this, and he surprisingly defended the decision, claiming that it was necessary to get companies to use HTML5:During a post-talk Q&A, he defended proposals to add support for "digital rights management" usage restrictions to HTML5 as necessary to get more content on the open Web: "If we don't put the hooks for the use of DRM in, people will just go back to using Flash," he claimed.Berners-Lee is so good on so many issues (most of his talk seemed to be about the importance of openness) that this response really stands out as not fitting with his general view of the world. Cory Doctorow has responded eloquently to TBL, explaining why he should be against the DRM proposal.
What's more, DRM is wholly ineffective at preventing copying. I suspect Berners-Lee knows this. When geeks downplay fears over DRM, they often say things like: "Well, I can get around it, and anyway, they'll come to their senses soon enough, since it doesn't work, right?" Whenever Berners-Lee tells the story of the Web's inception, he stresses that he was able to invent the Web without getting any permission. He uses this as a parable to explain the importance of an open and neutral Internet. But what he fails to understand is that DRM's entire purpose is to require permission to innovate.Doctorow makes two other key points in this: (1) that the W3C (the standards setting body for HTML5) has an enormous role in keeping the web free and open -- and imposing DRM is abusing the trust it has built up and will backfire badly and (2) that the big content players who insist they "need" DRM are bluffing.
For limiting copying is only the superficial reason for adding DRM to a technology. DRM fails completely at preventing copying, but it is brilliant at preventing innovation. That's because DRM is backstopped by anti-circumvention laws like the notorious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) and the EU Copyright Directive of 2002 (EUCD), both of which make it a crime to compromise DRM, even if you're not breaking any other laws. Effectively, this means that you have to get permission from a DRM licensing authority to add any features, since all new features require removing DRM, and the DRM license terms prohibit adding any features not in the original agreement, and omitting any of the mandatory restrictions featured in that agreement.
As the leading standards-setting body for the Web, the W3C has an enormous, sacred and significant trust. The future of the Web is the future of the world, because everything we do today involves the net and everything we'll do tomorrow will require it. Now it proposes to sell out that trust, on the grounds that Big Content will lock up its "content" in Flash if it doesn't get a veto over Web-innovation. That threat is a familiar one: the big studios promised to boycott US digital TV unless it got mandatory DRM. The US courts denied them this boon, and yet, digital TV continues (if only Ofcom and the BBC had heeded this example before they sold Britain out to the US studios on our own high-def digital TV standards).The Big Content guys have been seeking to remake the web in their image (i.e., "TV") for over a decade now, still believing that they're the main reason people get online. They're not. There's room for them within the ecosystem, but professional broadcast-quality content is just a part of the system, not the whole thing. If the world moves to HTML5 without DRM, the content guys will whine about it... and then follow. Especially as the more knowledgeable and forward-looking content creators jump in and succeed.
Flash is already an also-ran. As Berners-Lee himself will tell you, the presence of open platforms where innovation requires no permission is the best way to entice the world to your door. The open Web creates and supplies so much value that everyone has come to it – leaving behind the controlled, Flash-like environs of AOL and other failed systems. The big studios need the Web more than the Web needs big studios.
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
Filed Under: cory doctorow, drm, html5, internet, openness, permission, tim berners-lee
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising?
That's an exceptionally cynical approach to take -- and one that seems incredibly unfair without additional proof, especially around someone like TBL who has a very, very, very long and detailed history of personal integrity.
I think that the simpler reasoning makes sense: he's just not aware of why DRM is so antithetical to his overall ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
To digress a little, the proper place for DRM is not in the HTML spec at all. DRM has nothing to do with what HTML is all about. It's a bag on the side (and this is my primary technical objection to the idea).
From that perspective, it is unimportant for the W3C or TBL to understand the implications of DRM. It shouldn't even be in the discussion in the first place.
The failure is in endorsing adding this stuff in. And if it must be added in due to political considerations (which is clearly what's happening here), then the secondary failure is that they aren't raising a huge stink about it.
TBL's statement comes off as someone who knows the battle has been lost, but is trying to make sure it doesn't impact the acceptance of HTML 5 as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
I do agree with yaga that it reeks of greed even if it's not the intention and not necessarily with money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
And while you state, quite rightfully I might add, that TBL is a person of high integrity, I also believe he "has his price", just like anybody else.
While I would like to believe him being badly informed on this topic, after all the coverage of his peers *against* DRM I just can't see this, and see bribery as the more likely casue for his change of heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
I think bribery is unlikely. It's far more likely that he really, really wants HTML 5 to be widely adopted and perceives the DRM issue as being something that could slow the adoption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
It would be like...if say the Pope came out tomorrow and started preaching Islam, after having obviously preached Christianity for decades. Such a radical change would mean his word would be untrustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
However, whenever I see "everyone has their price" I feel compelled to add "yes, but that price isn't always money". There are people who can't be bought for any amount of cash. They are an extreme minority, but they exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
http://rtb.techdirt.com/products/silence-techdirt/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
Too much information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
Let them use Flash.
At least that way the infestation of DRM is limited to obviously proprietary components.
If you want to enforce ownership, a proprietary component doesn't seem so out of place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
I think he views this a case where either the DRM will let Big Copyright's content move onto the open Web, or that stuff will remain confined to Flash pages and mobile apps, thereby weakening the Web as a whole.
I think his logic is stronger for movies than e-books, seeing as how Amazon's HTML5 Kindle reader app apparently doesn't employ any DRM beyond only showing a chapter at a time: http://copyrightandtechnology.com/2011/08/31/amazon-lowers-the-speed-bump-with-kindle-cloud-reader/ But movie studios have a history of not taking "yes" for an answer, so more-or-less effective DRM in HTML5 still might not coax them out of proprietary systems.
- RP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising?
Think of it this way, at least now it wouldn't matter that you run AmigaOS as long as the browser is up to date and supports HTML5, you will be able to watch Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, etc...
The specification is actually rather vague, and I could also see this as a nice way to encrypt general traffic without the need for expensive licensing or software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
On top of all the issues with how this really is not much difference from the ActiveX and Flash messes of old; All I see here is a way for malicious developers/site authors to take advantage of end users and gain access to a new area where code can run (Possibly even outside the sandbox depending on the implementation).
Just like any other DRM, the people who can will remove it fairly easily when they really want something. However it will cause a whole bunch of fun for end customers when their DRM plugin store goes awry or they click a link from an email they think is from netflix, watch a TV show and now have a virus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
Provided also that your browser of choice has specifically been written to support each particular DRM scheme used by each particular website you visit, under your platform of choice (DRM is often OS-specific), and further provided that the browser's developer comply with all related licensing requirements and restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
My hope is that once stardardized this will lead to open source but difficult to break encryption, think 2048 bit PGP to secure more than just DRM media, but secure downloading of vital documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising?
Go put your Dirty Rotten Media in HTLM5 and it will be hacked within hours I bet.
Change your keys and that will be hacked as well.
Big Shots who Support it are probably getting a nice Fat Check to say they Support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising?
When I first read this I thought it said "Fat Chick". I suppose they may be getting that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the end I'll do exactly what I've been doing with DRMed content lately: I'll go without. And I"m sure many will do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Buy Physical Books and build a nice Library people.F$ck Dirty Rotten Media !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except for the fact that fewer platforms will support Flash, e.g., iOS, Android Jelly Bean + ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gimme a break. Let the DRM'ers use flash. Let HTML5 be free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An entire plugin architecture just to support DRM is ridiculous. Taking into account that this DRM scheme is particularly idiotic (key transmitted in the clear, will do a big fat nothing to stop pirates), and what we introduce is complexity, points of failure, and massive challenges to interoperability, for what?
HTML already has a plugin architecture. This duplicates that in a non-generic way, and doesn't solve the core problem it tries to address, while introducing a host of challenges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Flash Player for Android Ice Cream Sandwich unofficially works on Jelly Bean.
Microsoft amusingly enabled Flash Player by default in an update for Surface RT devices yesterday, probably to prevent Surface Pro devices from completely cannibalizing sales, yet like most other Windows apps there's not even a Silverlight browser plugin for RT...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree the doors aren't shuttered at AdobeFlash, but its future? Moribund it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do believe TBL understands the role DRM plays, but in order to push HTML 5, he's probably coming to a compromise.
This new version has been on the back burner far too long, and it's all because DRM isn't included for the embedded streaming.
In my opinion, I hope HTML 5 is forever stalled if it means accepting DRM.
There should be absolutely no compromise regarding DRM and the internet. Ever.
So get this through your head, Dodd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That. And also...
There should be absolutely no compromise regarding DRM and the internet. Ever.
That. He should stick to his principles. Once you let yourself be corrupted for some "greater good" there's no turning back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
Also implicit here is Mike leaving out that BIG SEARCH and BIG SURVEILLANCE wants HTML5.
If you want an open web, you'd better STOP "innovations" that require upgrading to new OS, and then take over your computer.
HTML5 gives BIG CONTENT far more control over your computer than at present (where your browser is more or less a "dumb terminal"); in fact, I'd say it implements the VERY thing Mike says he doesn't want: the internet as TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
If you really believe this, I've some stock aluminum foil I'd like to sell to you at a discount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
HTML5 is about delivering media, as well as some enhanced approaches to basic document structure.
HTML5 gives no more control over your computer. If anything it reduces it, as currently media must be supported with executable plugins that are complex to secure and can perform arbitrary logic (e.g. surveillance).
HTML5 is not executable, it is markup. Many browsers (not all, granted) are OSS so readable markup + OSS browser = full disclosure. NO POSSIBILITY for surreptitious for additional surveillance. Further, HTML (any version) as surveillance is idiotic on its face. HTML describes a document (in clear text, no less). Surveillance is typically carried out at the network layer.
To summarize, at best you freely conflate things you clearly do not understand, and at worst you are being intentionally misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OVERLOOKING that purpose of HTML5 is ADVERTISING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They aren't mandatory.
Those that want DRM will do so whether or not HTML 5 makes it easy or difficult. If it's difficult they simply won't use HTML 5 unless they absolutely have to. If it's easy, then everyone moves to HTML 5 sooner.
At least this way there is the possibility of DRM using a common scheme. Whether the industry wins or loses this battle against their own consumers is yet to be seen and this hardly puts a nail in either coffin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm far from convinced that this would be a good thing. HTML 5 is rather problematic for a number of reasons beyond the DRM question.
And why would this be a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Crack once, use everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would it be a good thing? So that you don't need to download every publishers pet DRM project and sign up with a new account because you want to look at a news article that's why.
I'm not suggesting that DRM is in anyway a good idea, but if they are going to do it, they might as well at least do it so that it doesn't bother me and this looks like it could be a good step in that direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The DRM scheme being proposed doesn't affect this. It's a plugin architecture. You'll still need a plugin for every publishers pet DRM project. They'll still make you sign up for an account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As has been shown time and time again, no matter what they use, there will always be ways to record the content. Since we are talking computers, they could even just copy the messaging from the application to the browser and receive the raw data anyways. IMHO it will have little effect on copying, but a more profound affect on user verification which is desperately needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is absolutely necessary because...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM in browsers may fragment the web
And that might be a good thing.
It might be the first place where you have a choice of whether or not to have DRM. Let the market decide. Let's see how much of a market there is for DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM in browsers may fragment the web
That will be the one I use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It still requires that the browser implements it.
Unless the entire internet decides to implement DRM in their pages, disabling DRM at the browser level won't affect a thing, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have worried about HTML5 in that it is a new format that needs to be swept under the Privoxy rug like prohibited actions like java, flash or shockwave.
If the terms for copyright were even close to to reasonable (well within one's lifetime) we might consider something like this but even then...
On the face of it current copyright limits are like a death sentence on ideas learned over public (hahaha) media. If you cannot use what you hear, before you die, why read/listen? Why even pay attention to the news if we cannot speak of it to our friends and neighbors. (without a fee)
Several time I have said that news-aggregation sites are nothing more than gossip. If greater than that that they should be given ad fees for referring interested clients to their sites. If firms could use HTML5 for regulating this they would. (to their own likely demise)
Java, flash and whatever are always banned from general browsing. Never visit a new site with such enabled and you will, 99.99% likely, never get a virus. If that breaks a site then so what don't go there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because locking up the web in un-searchable, unlinkable DRM is sooo much better than doing so in Flash, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of having to roll out their DRM crap user by user themselves, they're trying to piggy back on the work of others for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
1. HTML doesn't belong to Tim Berners-Lee. He made it that way. He doesn't decide what goes in or out of the technology. As its role of W3C Director, when there is a formal objection made by one of the participants in a Working Group when a technology is moving along the recommendation track, Tim has to decide on the nature of the objection. He never does it by abuse of power but look at all the arguments in place, but that just a last resort. It should usually never happen. Working Groups are driven by consensus.
2. W3C is a consortium where everyone participates, even more so for HTML. It creates a lot of frictions, delays the work, but that's the natural process of a larger community. In that community, there are different type of interests, and the role of the group (including industries, organizations, etc.) is to reach a consensus around a technology.
3. Royalty Free. Technologies which become W3C recommendations have to be Royalty Free, aka no participants in the technology has to waive patents. If one of the participants has a patent, they must say it AND decides if they accept to let it be royalty free. If not, the group has to find another solution. It means if there was a DRM mechanism puts in place, it would be royalty free. (Not that I want to see that happening.)
4. Many in the industry are already using DRM through flash for example. They often have constraints coming from copyright owners, which is basically along you do DRM or we don't deal with you. It means for the likes of $VOD_CO it's a choice between the end of their business or not. It's why a part of the industry is pressuring for it.
5. What people can do. Participate in W3C. Not in shouting, but in demonstrating the issues with implementing DRM. To find better technical solutions, to find better ways of dealing with the issue related to the industry of copyrights.
In the past, before the Royalty Free policy, there has been a lot of debate around RAND, which was adopted by IETF, W3C. The Open source community has participated in establishing a culture of RF at W3C. It worked. With Participation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
The problem isn't whether or not the proposed DRM framework is a good one or not. The problem is that things have degraded at the W3C so much that they're even talking about DRM in the first place.
So, no, I do not want to find a better technical solution for DRM, and no, I do not want to find a better way of dealing with copyright-related issues. Neither of these have any place in the standard at all.
But that horse is long out of the barn. There is no more room for useful input at the W3C on this subject. HTML 5 is already compromised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
When W3C has switched from RAND to RF for the patent policy after EPIC BATTLES, some members left. It's normal it's part of it. Having the discussion about DRM is something which is pushed by Google, Netflix, and others. Will people stop massively using Google Chrome or remove for their subscription to Netflix. I wish they did.
Having the discussion is good. It might help to define a policy along the one which happened for the patent policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Failed logic, W3C and Tim Berners-Lee
That's why I can confidently say that there's no more room for useful input (from my point of view) there on this subject. They've decided: DRM will be in there. They're only debating how it will be in there, which is underscores that this battle has already been lost.
I don't see how that's an analogous situation. This is a very different thing than arguing about licensing terms. At best, there may be a solution that is less terrible than what they currently have on the table, but if that solution involves including DRM mechanisms in the standard, it's still a terrible solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM in HTML5 is a Joke (And Why You Should Support The Spec)
Even something that hasn't been cracked yet programmatically can be bypassed by using screen capture software, but all "useful" DRM relies on obfuscation of the decryption method and closed-source code. The Encrypted Media Extensions spec is openly published and if it ends up in an open source web browser someone could easily add an on/off switch or a download button, perhaps even officially (Mozilla are you listening???)
One upside that seems to be overlooked is that EME could be used for encrypted live video streams over HTTP. There are already javascript crypto libraries that can be used to securely transfer live text over HTTP, and the speed of DH key exchange operations will improved when the native "Web Cryptography API" starts being implemented in browsers.
So a crutch for the content industry's shiny new broken-by-design DRM might actually be a powerful tool against surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When we talk about
Does Flash suck? Yes. It makes my laptop run 10 degrees hotter, but a web without Flash as dominant (the goal of Lee in this quote) doesn't have anything to do with actual features of HTML5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
protecting his legacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM isn't the problem.
You only have to look as far as many popular bit torrent trackers to see that DRM in all current forms is a failure however.
I'm sick of Open Source evangelists preaching about Open Source and Standards constantly as if it's the only ethical option. Some people want to be paid for their work and that is fine in my opinion. Economic gain is a very good motivator for content creation.
HOWEVER, I do believe the W3C should stay away from standardizing DRM into HTML5. If corporations want a standard DRM format, there is nothing stopping them working as a collective like many Open Source groups do to create a propriety cross platform DRM solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why they think Big Content is Key
No one cares about the average person on the net. They care about the average dollar. The "Net User" is actually "the bandwidth:" look at all the bandwidth taken up by movies, etc? But how many people doing what I am doing now, slowly typing a comment on a laptop at a coffee shop sharing wifi - would it take to match one person watching a streaming HD movie?
There's your answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Gimme a break. Let the DRM'ers use flash. Let HTML5 be free.