The link is the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec. EME is not DRM. It allows access to a decryption system outside of the browser.
That is different than what Cory and others are claiming.
Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix.
It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in the article.
Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.
And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.
I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the users who you claim have no idea what's going on.
So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".
I also fail to understand your ideology. Anyone who creates content should have the ability to decide how they wish to sell and distribute that content. I think DRM is futile, but I don't think it is bad as you seem to believe.
Idea here is rather straightforward. Publishers indeed have a choice to treat their users with respect, or to insult them with DRM. But we aren't talking about them making this choice - it's up to them. We are talking about W3C putting an unethical technology in a Web standard, to oblige some publishers who made that unethical choice. It's unacceptable! It's not different from saying that since malware creators want an ability to affect their users, W3C should standardize malware methods for the Web.
I'm not even saying that it's pointless, since it doesn't prevent piracy. DRM punishes and insults paying customers who care to buy the content, and does nothing to stop illegal redistribution and doesn't affect those who don't care to buy and pirate the stuff. So what is the point in using it? To upset paying customers by limiting usability of the content and by increasing security and malware risks in shady DRM programs?
Distributors should start treating users with respect if they want any respect back. And it always pays off. In general I get the feeling that actual creators (musicians, authors and etc.) don't care about all this DRM idiocy. Those who push it are publishers/distributors, who can't comprehend a simple thing - DRM has no useful application at all, all it does - it degrades the user experience and punishes paying customers.
I'm a customer, and I don't find DRM insulting to me. I see it as content creators attempting to find a way to continue getting paid for content they create in this new world. I think it is pointless, but that is very different from what you are saying.
I see absolutely no harm in adding the ability to use DRM in html5 video. It has absolutely no affect on the rest of the open web. There is still the ability to put non-DRMed content on the web. If you truly believed that customers would reject DRM, and you seem to think so, then you shouldn't have a problem with giving people the choice and letting consumers vote with their feet.
Oh really? Should I remind you of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
>I also disagree with the idea that protecting content you create is unethical. If I own a store, and put a lock on the door, it is not unethical because I am assuming that someone might try to break in and take stuff.
Your analogy is wrong. People buying content is analogous to going to the store, buying something and bringing it home. Protecting the store is all fine with me - it's analogous to creating authentication, allowing only registered users to buy and so on. DRM goes much further than that. If you want to use the store analogy, it would mean that after buying a product, the store sends their police bot with you, which comes to your house and watches what you do, preventing you from potential illegal activity. I find it completely unethical and unacceptable practice. Another analogy would be placing a police camera right in your house, for the sake of preventing situations when you decide to do something illegal. Do you think it's acceptable?
DRM is running on your computer, in your house on your device in your private network. It's a closed black box which you suddenly are supposed to trust? Why so? One shouldn't trust it, especially given the history of abusing these things. Trust always depends on mutuality. DRM means they don't trust you by default assuming you are going to use the content illegally. Why after that you suddenly are supposed to trust them? They should be treated in the same fashion and not trusted by default!
We disagree on the core principle here. You don't consider DRM unethical, so you don't see a problem to put it in the HTML standard. I consider the whole approach unethical and therefore putting it in the standard as unacceptable.
However I brought several arguments why it's pointless even according to your view. One of them - it's a dying trend which is impractical altogether (i.e. it achieves no useful purpose and on the contrary only degrades usability and ignores the issues of fair use and accessibility). Therefore making it a standard is wrong, since it means promoting dying pointless trends on the Web.
My original point stands.
It's not because of Sony's case DRM is unethical. Just the opposite - because DRM is unethical, cases like Sony's are to be expected from it. I.e. Sony's case just demonstrates how easy it is to abuse preemptive policing, and that most users won't even notice it right away.
> My original point stands.
It stands not on the principles of the open Web though. I already explained above that DRM stands on the concepts of Orwellian police state and big brother approach, and that your analogy with protecting the store was incorrect. You didn't answer on the essence of the question so far.
I'm done here, have a nice day.
For a change, here is my favorite story about pitfalls of intrusive preemptive policing:
Seems to be working out pretty well for Hulu/Netflix. Or is releasing your $100 million budget film DRM-Free onto the internet now profitable??
So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...
However, if, say, there's a particular movie that is available on netflix/hulu which you want to distribute freely for whatever reason and you are technically savvy, no DRM(short of netflix/hulu controlling the actual hardware you're watching from) will prevent you from doing so.
Therefore, DRM offers no additional protection beyond what a regular login cookie-based system with rate limiting would offer.
DRM has completely failed at preventing people from pirating content; and yet, companies selling content seem to be doing plenty well at it. Why do we keep insisting that DRM is necessary or else people will pirate all of the content, and thus making our software and standards more complex, more flaky, and work against the interests of users, when the existence of piracy is obviously not destroying the content providers now?
You know what's preventing them from making more money? The fact that because of complex licensing schemes, DRM, and the like, I can't be guaranteed that if I buy content I can play it on the devices that I choose to use. If I pirate a video, I can play it anywhere. Content producers are shooting themselves in the foot because of their fear of piracy; piracy works better than buying the content directly, and will continue to do so as long as they insist on DRM.
http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0
I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.
If they streamed videos with no-DRM, everyone with a subscription would easily grab a copy of whatever they want. And all it would take is copying a file and sharing it with friends/family to have it spread. This might not seem like a huge difference, but honestly I think it would be. It would lower the barriers of sharing to the point that everyone could do it. Only those who hold onto a moral belief in not committing copyright infringement wouldn't participate. I think the past has shown that these people are in the vast minority.
Besides Youtube is a free service, that everyone basically assumes will continuously be there. You're bringing up non-related factors.
http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/
I don't believe that someone would cancel Netflix because they happened to have ripped all of the things they are interested in. The value of Netflix is accessing an enormous library, vastly bigger than you could store (changing all the time!) and watching an item that you feel like watching at this time. A Netflix subscriber can't exactly predict every single item they'll be interested in until the end of time, rip them, then cancel.
Even if there were a few people that did this, they would make up an incredibly tiny proportion of paying users, and they'd likely be akin to the digital hoarders that have TB of movies downloaded.
That's because YouTube content can be trivially shared with other people.
Stop the sharing and pretty sure you would start to see piracy.
As for picture and sound quality being terrible, simply not true. Recording from a projected image is one way to do telecine, and it works fine if you can set it up properly. [1] A half-decent telecine is very different from surreptitiously recording a film in a cinema.
The stream will be re-compressed but this isn't such an issue as many people think. Back when TV was recorded on analog tape in the 90s, you were allowed 8 generations of copying and it would still be considered acceptable for broadcast (for news).
[1] "The quality of a good telecine is generally comparable to a DVD without any post-processing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine_(copying)
But if every subscriber could simply right-click on download because they have ZERO DRM that would be very different. I won't drone on because I already stated my case to another comment. I don't see why you guys keep pressing this point about some tech savvy people being able to get through DRM.
In order to allow someone to consume your encrypted content, you must give them a valid decryption key, in some form. If you can view the content, it is literally impossible to prevent a determined user from copying it, either digitally or through the analog hole. In current computer systems there is no way to prevent making a high-quality digital copy of an encrypted media stream.
Also, since we've developed a network to propagate information around the planet at a terrific rate, that one determined user's ability to share that content is limited only by the number of people who [a] are interested in the content and [b] have the (lesser) technological skill required to obtain a copy, via file sharing networks or sneakernet.
DRM is pure snake oil. It does not and can not do anything to prevent content distribution. The only possible outcome is to inconvenience legitimate use -- thus degrading the value of your product versus the pirated media. You're already competing with "free", you might want to avoid stacking the deck further against yourself.
The ultimate conclusion here is that enforcing copyrights on digital works is impossible. It's not practical to close the digital hole, and impossible to close the analog one. I'm sorry if that impacts your business model.
Hey, not all of us believe that. I'm perfectly fine with putting DRM on streaming video; I certainly don't expect to be able to download all of netflix to my computer for one month's subscription. It's much more of an issue when I pay full price for a movie (after pressing the "Purchase" button) and I find I don't actually own it.
What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that is decidedly against the public interest.
I'm surprised that this is upvoted to the top of the thread, when you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is---as if the DRM's detractors don't already know what it is or how it works.
> Sure, it'd be nice if the big media companies stopped insisting on using encryption to distribute their videos. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
That's only true because technologists continue to lie to media companies, telling them that DRM is feasible and not harmful to their interests (even though, in addition to being against the public interest, it tends to cause monopolization of their distribution chains---just ask the music industry happened with iTunes).
Look, these media companies are looking to us for advice; We're doing both them an ourselves a disservice by continuing to sell them DRM snake oil.