DRM In HTML5: What Is Tim Berners-Lee Thinking?
from the what-about-the-users? dept
Back in January, we reported on a truly stupid idea: making DRM an official aspect of HTML5. Things then went quiet, until a couple of weeks ago a post on a W3C mailing announced that the work was "in scope". An excellent post on the EFF's blog explains:
This means the controversial Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal will continue to be part of that group's work product, and may be included in the W3C's HTML5.1 standard. If EME goes through to become part of a W3C recommendation, you can expect to hear DRM vendors, DRM-locked content providers like Netflix, and browser makers like Microsoft, Opera, and Google stating that they can now offer W3C standards compliant "content protection" for Web video.
The same post offers a chilling glimpse of where EME could take us:
A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's a Web where user agents – browsers -- must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page. It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable.
Rather ironically, given the fact that EME may well lead to the official closing-down of much of the open Web, Tim Berners-Lee has recently written an article entitled "The many meanings of Open", which included the following section:
The W3C community is currently exploring Web technology that will strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of consumers. In this space in particular, W3C seeks to lower the overall proprietary footprint and increase overall interoperability, currently lacking in this area.
Techdirt readers will immediately recognize the framing here: people who use the Web are either active "creators" or passive "consumers". Since the needs and desires of those groups are in opposition, somehow they have to be "balanced". It's exactly how the copyright industry tries to present the online world as it demands rights there that can be used against the public as part of that "balance". It's curious to see Berners-Lee adopt this formulation to justify putting DRM into HTML5. The same thinking came up in a W3C blog post that Berners-Lee wrote around the same time:
So we put the user first, but different users have different preferences. Putting the user first doesn't help us to satisfy users' possibly incompatible wants: some Web users like to watch big-budget movies at home, some Web users like to experiment with code. The best solution will be one that satisfies all of them, and we're still looking for that. If we can't find that, we're looking for the solutions that do least harm to these and other expressed wants from users, authors, implementers, and others in the ecosystem.
Again, there is the idea that the desires of people who want an open Web -- the ones that want to "experiment", by examining the underlying HTML code, say -- and those who want to watch "big-budget movies at home", are somehow in opposition, and have to be "balanced". That's nonsense. The standards currently underlying the Web are open, with no direct support for DRM -- although companies can and do add it in various non-standard ways. And people are already able to watch films at home, so there is no need to destroy the open Web in order to make the latter possible. Elsewhere in the same post we learn perhaps the real reason why the Berners-Lee and the W3C want to take this step:
if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C, better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible, and better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source, and available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box. Those are key arguments for the decision that this topic is in scope.
Leaving aside the dubious initial premise -- there is no evidence that DRM is necessary, and Apple's decision to drop it for music indicates quite the contrary -- this suggests that going along with demands for adding DRM to HTML5 is about the W3C's fear of becoming marginalized by Hollywood studios as they make more of their films available online.
Perhaps the W3C should worry less about its own position and more about the users it claims to put first. After all, the net effect of creating an official standard for interoperable DRM will be to make it easier for copyright companies to adopt it -- there won't even be the present barriers and friction caused by incompatible ad-hoc systems that might make them think twice about adding it. Instead, it is likely to become the default on most online products, placing more obstacles in the way of fair-use rights of users, particularly those who are visually-impaired, who will find it harder to access these materials at all if such DRM becomes commonplace.
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
Filed Under: drm, html5, open, openness, tim berners-lee
Companies: w3c
Reader Comments
The First Word
“It's The Connectivity, Stupid!
What drives the Internet is not content, but connectivity. There were other online networks before the Internet--anybody remember Compuserve, Prodigy, the original AOL? Their selling point was their exclusive content, which you couldn't get on the Internet. Yet they were all swept aside, simply because the Internet offered better connectivity between people.The Internet doesn't need content providers. It is content providers that need the Internet.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What I don't understand is...
Ummm... why is all that better? He's simply asserting that it is, but I don't think that's an obvious conclusion at all.
The more the HTML5 spec progresses, the worse it gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't understand is...
Basically, it's all bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I don't understand is...
(1) Certain content providers will DRM their stuff no matter what.
(2) Absent an open standard, they'll use their own proprietary closed source software.
(3) This forces web users to download plugins and other whatnot, which can break compatability with various devices and introduce security vulnerabilities (think of all the issues with Flash).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I don't understand is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I don't understand is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I don't understand is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieR9AwnHyo
What they want to change us into (aka, "Thank You for installing HTML 5.1 - Uninstall is Not Possible - UEFI Rootkit Edition :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItHcsIHshhs
The public "users" reply (aka, FU):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aJCrMDl-H4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I don't understand is...
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) This could result in Linux machines being locked out of using most content, as DRM modules will not be available due to the ease of getting round them when access is available to the browser and operating system code.
2) For anyone with an unreliable connection, the only way to watch a video is to download it first, this option could disappear.
3) Would you trust a DRM module from any site associated with any government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W3C just has one problem we have to agree as users to use this. Just like their XHTML standard that was never adopted I don't expect this will be either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I am concerned with is the fragmentation of the internet which this will go a long ways towards accomplishing. For most websites that want to display some part of a work for critique, for parody, or for any other legal use, they will not be able to do so without adopting the same standards. This means that many which do occasionally do such works, such as Techdirt does will not be able to continue without the same adoptions. Those that aren't involved with the same topics will often see no need to change their format. When such time comes, if it does I'll bid you farewell. When the net becomes unusable I'll drop the crap as not worth paying for.
That's what this will accomplish for my part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
Seriously, little known story, but web browsers don't actually obey the HTML4 standards.
Microsoft made changes to the standard on it's own basically, in how IE views webpages, in order to break other competing web browsers that people used to buy. It gave them a competitive advantage, not only is IE free, but it actually views web pages properly.
So what's to stop a web browser company, or even an open source web browser built to combat DRM in HTML5, from popping up and reading HTML5 pages in such a way that it breaks all the built in DRM?
The answer is absolutely nothing, sure they can threaten lawsuits against whoever does it, but once it's published online it's too late to stop it and the DRM in HTML5 will be meaningless from that point on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
Encryption. The HTML5 DRM relies on a proprietary plug-in to decrypt the media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
And we don't need a full-on browser. All it takes is a browser plugin to hijack the the datastream from the plugin and save it elsewhere. If they want security, they should write their own damn browser! Of course, HTML 5.1 has all the hallmarks of XHTML: complicated and limiting with no discernable value to coders or end-users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's to stop a new web browser that doesn't obey HTML5 then?
The DRM is a blackbox that will require OS calls.
With this new NSA era, I'm not sure how many people really want random executables from the web running on their systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
No fear, everybody, this is going to fail just like Flash and Silverlight did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
The whole thing is stupid. The dangerous part is not that it can't be bypassed, it's that it is being enshrined in the standard, and is being sold to us using extremely dubious arguments.
Also, this will be used to lock down the web (even outside of video) in pretty awful ways. As an example, if javascript can be DRM'd, it would mean that tools like NoScript wouldn't be able to block it, which means that you can't protect your computer from nefarious scripts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
No, it'd still be able to be blocked. It doesn't have to be decrypted to 1) know it's javascript and 2) stop it from being decrypted. Also, and this is the same reason that DRM in HTML will never work, once it's decrypted, you're at the exact same point as we would be without the standard. If the code is to be used it has to be decrypted at some point, then it's open to anything. It's the digital version of the analog loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
But you are right, the stupidity that thing brings is something to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
Can you point me toward a tutorial for saving content off Hulu? All the guides I've found rely on outdated tools that no longer work. As far as I can see, you can't save anything from Hulu to a local copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
There's a bunch of stuff on HULU that can't be found anywhere else. Like the uncut episodes of the 1995 show The Outer Limits. Although all seven seasons are available on DVD, only the first season is uncensored. For whatever reason, the syndicated versions of seasons 2-7 were used, which edit out any nudity and swearing that was originally present in the Showtime broadcasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
step 1. play video in full screen.
step 2. record screen using fraps.
If it can be played on the machine, it can be recorded.
Note 2: even if they put in some sort of detection for recording software(which would break frequently) you could setup a second monitor - which is actually recording software thus having the video stream sent directly to the recording software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
step 2. record screen using fraps.
If it can be played on the machine, it can be recorded.
Unfortunately, using screen recording software is a far from ideal solution.
Hulu uses Flash and Flash videos ALWAYS stutter at some point. It has nothing to do with my connection speed, buffering or the size of the video. I can be watching low-res videos on YouTube with nothing else running and even though the video is completely buffered it will still stutter occasionally. If the screen is being recorded, it will record the stutter.
Recording the screen rather than the actual stream will also record the ads.
The video will be scaled to fit my screen, which results in a loss of quality. Even if I use a high resolution setting and select an HD copy, it will either be scaled to play in a window in the browser (and I assume the browser window would be recorded as well), or if I use full-screen, it will be scaled to fit the screen.
If the image is widescreen, it will be shown letterboxed (I have a 4:3 monitor) and the black bars will become part of the image. It would then need to be cropped, which means re-encoding it, resulting in more quality loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
No, sorry. I don't want to encourage or enable piracy. However, you do have all the tools you need to figure this out for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
In other words, you don't know. You just assumed that it was possible. And technically it should be, but so far nobody seems to be able to figure out how to actually do it. Believe, people have tried.
Sure, you can record the screen, but as far as saving the actual streams, that's a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trusted Computing, Anyone?
Its called "trusted computing". Change the hardware or software too much and the thing won't even boot. While billed as a way to prevent hacking and viruses, (it in fact provides a method to create a very hard to spot, and even harder to remove virus), the main aim is to placate the likes of hollywood by providing restrictions below the user-accessable level. This concept has support from the two major proprietary desktop operating system vendors, and can be seen in the move toward 'app stores', 'signed'/'approved' applications and the abstraction of the file-system and other low-level components from users.
In the next 5 years or so we can expect desktop operating systems to become further crippled, to the point where it is no longer possible to write and run your own application without requiring the approval of the OS vendor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
So, break the main few, free content for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it a standard if it changes every few days?
Then content creators bitch that they're dying from a thousand paper cuts and insist that the W3C put in stronger protections that will also not work in the end.
And the wheel turns.
I hope the W3C knows what it's getting into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck that noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing...
It looks like Tim Berners-Lee has sold out open technology for closed proprietary spaces while adopting the framing and paycheck of an RIAA member.
I have lost any respect for someone who decides that money is a better thing to have than innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is truly NOT surprising. The Internet is a SPY system.
The phony deal that evil people (and gullible fools) try to force on us: You can't have the benefits of technology unless give up all privacy.
08:23:44[j-530-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is truly NOT surprising. The Internet is a SPY system.
And you are a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies (full of commercials and expensive) and the DRM behind cable (and satellite) that makes it difficult for others to create affordable DVR's and view international satellite stations without some paid subscription, copy'right' lengths and retroactive extensions and the one sided penalty structure behind those who infringe who can receive huge penalties and those who falsely claim infringement who can get far lower penalties and almost never get punished.
The government should not grant govt established broadcasting monopolies for private or commercial use and yet it does. The private organizations that wrongfully receive these monopolies are not entitled to these monopoly privileges and they should have no govt privileges to prevent me and others from broadcasting or using existing (or creating new) cableco infrastructure. Yet they do.
The existing laws are not 'one sided', they do not balance the needs of 'consumers' and 'produces', they are only intended to serve the parasite middlemen at the expense of both users and creators. IP law is an abomination that should be destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The existing laws are not 'balanced', they do not balance the needs ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken Algorithms in standards make no logical sense to me
You cannot lock up content and at the same time provide the key to the user to unlock that content for viewing while also preventing the user from using the key in unintended ways.
Why are people wanting to include broken algorithms in standards? Sounds like the sort of standard I would want to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broken Algorithms in standards make no logical sense to me
Also given NSA's desire for collecting data, all storage would be in the cloud so that they could look at what everyone is looking at and writing. This is the dystopian future predicted by RMS if users cannot control the software on their machines, and how their data is stored. One bright spot, the soviet union could not stop the circulation of Samizdat, you cannot stop the copying of content when it is on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broken Algorithms in standards make no logical sense to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez, I'd think you Techdirtbags would be cheering this innovative use of technology. Or is that limited to technology that helps you freeload?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, it won't, as the vast majority of piracy is not accomplished through browser streaming in the first place.
The problem I have with this isn't that it would hinder piracy (I don't pirate, and this wouldn't touch piracy to any noticeable degree anyway), but that it will restrict perfectly reasonable and legitimate activities, therefore making the web less useful.
For some (such as myself) who simply won't install the DRM plugins, it will mean that there will be entire segments of the web that I can no longer access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is still a large portion of the web running IE6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, if you said, there is still a large portion of the web in China, that would be a bit more accurate. So the extent to which Netflix "has" to support IE6 really just depends on how much of China they want to reach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be disabling it.
I'll disable DRM, just as I do not install Flash today (except in cases where I'm required to do otherwise for my job, and am using employer-provided equipment). I will encourage those around me to do the same, where they have that option.
I'm actually okay with losing access to much of the web, if that turns out to be the consequence of this. There are plenty of people who aren't on the web at all. I'll manage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care
The plug-in approach won't work across all platforms, so your mobile device won't render content that works on your IE platform and vice versa. This will be just as broken as the current spec. Situation normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a web developer myself, I've read recent information browser makers are going to start designing new browsers, with different engines, in order to "compete" differently than a "compliant" browser.
Chrome will embed features to which only Chrome browsers can view, for example, while Mozilla will actively try to stay as open as possible.
If this sounds familiar, it should. When Microsoft entered the browser arena, we were inundated with blink and marquee tags which no other browser could view. Once IE was "bundled" with the OS, people developed pages specifically for IE, not realizing other browsers were in use.
It took years to rectify this, and now HTML 5, along with companies telling add-on makers to "white list them", just goes to show there's no such thing as "compliance" anymore, unless "compliance" means "don't break our stuff".
I've been in this business for 20 years, and this news just makes my heart sink. We finally get some semblance of unity, and now it's all about to be flushed down the toilet.
I see myself into a forced retirement soon. Not because I'm coming of age, but I absolutely refuse to go back to the programming hell of having to determine what a browser has (or not) just to push information.
It's pathetic Corporate America has yet to figure out the internet in this day and age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Corporate thinking in a nutshell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
XHTML
Within the first 2 weeks, I realized that I would never use this piece of garbage. It was case-sensitive for no good reason, and the keywords were all lower-case where previous convention called for upper-case. There were many other problems as well, but heck if I can remember them. I just remember the new feature set: nothing. For all of the recoding and ugliness, I got zilch for using it (excepting the logo, of course.)
Lo and behold, no one else used it, either. The specification is essentially dead.
So, if they expect HTML5.1 DRM to take hold, they better come up with some additional kick-a$$ features, or it will end up in the same dust-bin as XHTML, regardless of it's status as a "standard."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"strike a balance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's The Connectivity, Stupid!
The Internet doesn't need content providers. It is content providers that need the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's The Connectivity, Stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's The Connectivity, Stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A plugin by any other name,,,
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
�In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementers over specifiers over theoretical purity.�
And if the following (from the Berners-Lee's blog post) is true:
"No one likes DRM as a user, wherever it crops up."
Then can someone explain why that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that there shouldn't be DRM in HTML5 because user's don't like it, regardless of what authors prefer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W3C is dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standard if it changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The more the HTML5 spec progresses, the worse it gets"
code is getting uglier and harder when it should be getting cleaner and clearer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tml5 css3 is a great idea in practice but not in reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wood
tml5 css3 is a great idea in practice but not in reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM in HTML5 = More Power to the Powerfull
It is not going to help creators because most of the real creators like musicians, actors and film directors no longer own their lives or their work. They live and die by the grace of oligarchic media-multinationals who really rule the market and politics (and thus intellectual property laws).
The individual creator and as a matter off fact the people as a community have long lost the real power and onwnership in our "democracy".
And now they have also lost the "ownership" of W3C, aca the internet, to the international capital powerhouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HTML 5 and CSS3 is a gread idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i like green contrast
Thank you so much i like green contrast with black on my website and also please advise me which color is more better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cau ca
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not going to help creators because most of the real creators like musicians, actors and film directors no longer own their lives or their work. They live and die by the grace of oligarchic media-multinationals who really rule the market and politics (and thus intellectual property laws).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a gread idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great
Yep! Great idea that I've neve seen before. Make it happen ^^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect Ideas
Great information. And my blog is wooden floor, can you click here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interlinefloor
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
omegaicc
Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
omegaicc
Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]