Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not.

As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text.

If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part.

Also, just like DRM has done before, it's going to make content inaccessible for those who want to view that content at a later point with different technology, except that this time around it's not just going to be Netflix, it's going to be a good portion of the web.

So, yes, DRM has been part of the web for a long time, but how big that part is, is going to dramatically change.

"Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change?

> Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not.

> As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text.

> If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part.

I would like to see some evidence for that. From a very brief read of what the EME spec defines, I don't believe this is technically possible in the spec. The spec only applies to 'protect' byte streams sent to audio and video codecs. If it were possible I think we would have seen implementations already since implementations have existed since 2013.

I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't need FUD to get that point across.

There is no FUD here. The W3C should not be involved in standardizing DRM API. If browsers want to implement DRM it is their problems. Everybody dropped the ball here. Mozilla, the W3C ... they could have just said no, that's not our problem, they were too corrupt to do that, they just signed the death of the open web.

The FUD here is that the implication is that now text and images will be DRM'ed. EME only allows DRM'ing video and audio. Facts matter, and making stuff up to 'support' the point does not help. His post literally starts with "the fear is..." and then provides no facts to support it.

It may be so that they signed the death of the open web. But it seems to me that if this is your definition of the death of the open web, the open web has been dead since the broad support and use of the <object> or <embed> tags with RealPlayer, Flash and Silverlight - and very dead since broad adoption of EME before the W3C had any standards on it. Signing that death after all this time does not add anything except for some symbolism.

That said, the text option is not that realistic as long as there are legal obligations as regards accessibility, which will require the accessibility tree to contain a closed captioned version of the media (and that isn't encrypted).

The point still stands. EME has been commonplace for three years now. If the fear that it would grip beyond audio and video in the real world is based in reality, we would have seen it by now. The W3C decision changes nothing for the people who would use it.

I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary.

There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.

I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient.

The option of there being no DRM was realistically never on the table, as much as people would've liked it to be.

Way back in the 2000s when HDTV was getting off the ground, the networks demanded that all recording devices support a "broadcast flag" that would allow them to prevent recording. CBS in particular said that unless this was legally mandated, they would refuse to broadcast in HD. Instead we called their bluff, and they backed down because it turns out they don't hate money: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/dtv-era-no-broadcast

Sure, media companies would prefer a world where everything is DRMed and all computing devices are locked down, and if we hand that to them on a silver platter they'll take it. But I don't believe for a second that they can't survive without it.

With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.

If the choice is no DRM or literally not making any money on the Internet, content creators will choose no DRM every time. Technologists have all the leverage here. If the web simply didn't support DRM, do you think Netflix, Hulu, and NBCUniversal would pack their bags and lose on billions of dollars because of some theoretical increases in piracy? Of course not. They'd just offer their content with no DRM.

There are many file sharing, illicit streaming and torrent websites that have the entire HBO catalog available. They are pretty easy to find with simple Google searches. Piracy is not esoteric, it's pervasive even today. There is absolutely no technical obstacle to watching any HBO or major studio's content online for free. And that's arguably a lot easier then figuring out how to copy a huge file for non-technical users. DRM can't have any major effect here, people who want to pirate will pirate, DRM be damned.

The only thing DRM does is introduce barriers to legitimate interoperability and innovation. You get situations like "does this operating system or device support Netflix?" which is unheard if the web was truly an open system.

This is not comparable in my opinion. Music was bought, downloaded, stored locally and used on countless devices - from your living room setup, your NAS and media center, to portable players or your car. It made no sense to restrict that kind of content to specific software like iTunes.

A Netflix stream doesnt face the same problems. Compatibility isn't an issue here. Most consumers will never run into problems with Netflix' DRM.

That said, of course if it was possible to buy and download movies for permanent offline viewing, similar to music purchases, it would be absolutely necessary to provide that content DRM-free.

There's actually quite a few systems which do exactly that. Funnily enough, all use DRM.

Why, precisely, do you think you can't play the video file in a player of your choice? That is literally what DRM is - technical restrictions against using content you have purchased in a manner you desire. They provide the file in an encrypted format that only their own player can decrypt.

When iTunes used DRM for music, only Apple's devices could play music you bought from iTunes, too.

However you're right - the iTunes purchasing example shouldn't have been part of my previous response. On the other hand I think DRM is fine, if not a necessity, for a subscription service like Netflix. It is basically renting content and my expectations towards these services are very different from a store that offers purchasing, which should absolutely be a DRM-free experience. The fact that it's not is exactly the reason why I don't buy films on those platforms, unlike music, which is available countless large and niche stores.

So with EME vendors can still do this: "hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient"

EME just gives a basic API and a way to get this DRM stuff into the browser. This doesn't do what you think it does.

This goes completely against the nature of the Internet, and it's also useless (as it will not stop "piracy"). I can't believe the W3C is doing this, it's extremely sad and marks a dangerous precedent.

So it was almost out as part of the modern web stuff, and it came back the very next day.

I'm not agreeing with this but it's how it is and I don't see that changing. I agree with another commenter that it's been like this for virtually forever and this decision doesn't change much.

Does it though? I mean, there are already non-drm versions available, and have been "forever". Yet 99% of people still choose netflix because it's easier. Even the 1% choose netflix because it is easier.

How does restricting the delivery of legitimate/legal content impact the way that people consume illegitimate/illegal content?

I also don't see it changing, but it seems like it will have /obviously/ literally zero impact on the availability of pirated content, and how/if people use pirated content.

I don't think this is true. You can find illegal streams for many (most? (all?)) TV shows with a quick Google search. It's also pretty common knowledge that TPB and similar torrent sites exist, and you don't have to be in the top 1% of computer users to install a BitTorrent client.

Not in my experience. I couldn't even find a 2016 movie on the top torrent sites last week.

If all you watch is Game of Thrones and other globally popular shows, then yeah, I'm sure it's trivial.

IMO we have oversupply of interchangeably disposable content fighting for a limited number of clicks, if someone makes it hard for their customers to engage, they are shooting themselves in the foot. E.g. whenever I'm greeted with a paywall, that tab is instaclosed.

All that is needed now is a DRM format that delivers HTML/JavaScript and is implemented by Chrome, Safari, and maybe Edge.