While I doubt this will work, at least its a first step before people threaten to fork the standard. Thus, it gives W3C time and perspective on what the future could become for HTML.
To run and view DRM content, you must use closed and by extension, proprietary software. That has always meant increased costs in either price (license) or performance. If one sufficient popular product refuses to pay that cost, the web will become splinted into groups of working vs non-working websites for a subset of users. Given that every company has a incentive to decrease costs, this is just a matter of time.
Hopefully W3C will realize that this is not a future they wish to have.
You can fork standard till the cows come home, the only thing that matters is what the browser vendors do.
I am not sure about the relevance/importance of the w3c either, given the history of HTML5 which was born as Web Application 1.0 outside of w3c and partly out of the frustration caused by that organisation.
Since no one else is writing the obligatory HN "I like the idea, but it will not work." comment, here it is.
I really like the general idea of a way to validate websites for privacy issues. In the best case they should even do this client side. But I think that they need to figure out two rather hard problems, one economically and one rather philosophical.
The economical problem is, why should any web site owner use it. I simply do not see a strong incentive.
And the philosophical is, what is actually meant by freedom? I see a lot of edge cases besides DRM which are sketchy, like user tracking. But to reliably stop user tracking, it is likely necessary to ban cookies ( which have of course a lot legitimate uses). And JS is a different can of worms, it can be used to spy on the user. The list goes on, iframes and third party content? Does freedom HTML get tainted by it?
Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom.
A content creator has the right to stipulate whatever contractual conditions she prefers in order for you to partake of the content she's produced. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
That being said, it's another matter of what actually constitutes good business, likely there are not really any business advantages to DRM. You could also definitely make a case for this idea as a good method of consumer empowerment. I'd just prefer if they didn't pretend that this has anything to do with "freedom" or liberty.
> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom.
But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to.
And this was precisely my point, a important part of the standard depends on the precise meaning of freedom.
>But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to.
Freedom doesn't mean the right to coerce others. If Netflix offers you a certain contract (you pay their fee and accept their DRM, and in return they stream you content) and you want to enforce a different contract on them without their consent (you refuse the DRM and they still stream you content), you are not advocating for freedom.
You might as well say, "And this is specifically what murder laws do, they prevent me from projecting my bullets in the way I want to."
Normally when I think of the stereotypical disliked DRM scenario it is something along the lines of:
A publisher offers to sell, I do mean sell not lease or contract,
you an ebook. The ebook however comes with DRM. It is not
legal, in the US, to break that DRM under most circumstances.
This is case where DRM conflicts with the first-sales doctrine [1] and most people belief that they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to their own property.
Often publishes advertise something as selling property, but really only want to lease access rights, which is a different problem, false, dishonest or deceitful advertising.
The context of this comment thread is Netflix, which no one can reasonably claim to believe to be selling, rather than streaming, content.
In the case of sales, I absolutely agree with you that DRM sucks and is misleading (perhaps to the point of being unethical) to the uninformed. And personally (being informed), I don't buy anything with annoying DRM.
That depends, watching something on Netflix does not grant you owner's rights in that case. So, DRM is a fair deal in that contract.
As for a DVD that you purchased? That's a different situation. Personally, I agree with you on that one, but you agreed to the licensing terms that likely stipulate you do not own the content on the disc. Therefore, you get your DRM.
It's not a direct attack, and theoretically what you said is true. However practically it won't be. The "networking effect" will come into motion.
Look at it from consumer perspective. They can choose a web browser that supports their favorite service, for which they have subscription or use another open source and free browser that doesn't support their favorite service. People leave, which leads to reduced revenue for that browsers and its development stalls and slows, leading to further loss of interest and eventually its death and/or fading into obscurity.
So open source and free browser, won't have much freedom other than to apply it however silly that sounds. So its not so much an attack on consumer freedom, but an attack on browser vendor's freedom.
This if ofc moot if OSS browsers can introduce DRM into their core, which might be possible.
DRM can't be implemented in FOSS because the ability to modify the software (and use the modified version) makes it possible to circumvent DRM restrictions (eg, insert some code to save the content after it is decoded).
DRM always implies restricting user control over their own computers.
> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom.
You are an impressive comedian. Kudos, to you, sir.
For those not in the know, a common joke on Arrested Development was that a character would accuse someone of doing something, and would then do the exact thing they were accusing someone else of doing.
I just don't get this obsession with not letting anything like DRM into an open spec for HTML. Copyright owners have every right to use DRM and in many cases thats the only way we are ever going to get access that content without monstrosities like Flash.
I'm not arguing that DRM works or that we shouldn't be allowed to "remove" it from media we legitimately own (we should be allowed to) but we shouldn't decide that DRM is evil because it isn't. Its the legislation around it that is, DRM is necessary to help prevent capsule mass piracy, we all know it isnt perfect and never can be but if it lets me watch a film or tv show without flash or some other junk then I'm all for there being hooks to enable it in HTML.
we shouldn't decide that DRM is evil because it isn't
This isn't exactly an argument.
DRM is software working against its own users. Why should we embrace it?
DRM is necessary to help prevent capsule mass piracy
It doesn't, and even if it did, that end doesn't justify the means.
if it lets me watch a film or tv show without flash or some other junk then I'm all for [it]
I'd rather those who support DRMed media to be inconvenienced; maybe they'll actually stop buying crap and funding the companies that try to push terrible legislation.
And if not, at least I don't get DRM in my software.
Well, what's the problem then? If DRM works against the users then the alternative will surely win? Nobody forbids you from not using DRM capabilities in your own product.
Nobody forbids you from not using DRM capabilities in your own product.
Almost; if my product is a web browser, I know would have to implement DRM functionality in order to comply with the open web standards. This is what I object to, and I find ethically wrong. I'm not advocating for the illegalization of DRM or anything like that, just that open standards not be polluted by it.
That is a common mischaracterization of Steam but it is technically incorrect.
Steam itself is the distribution platform (authentication/payment system and package manager). It can be used to deliver both DRMed and DRM-free content [1]. Valve's own DRM (called "Custom Executable Generation" or "CEG" for short) is part of the Steamworks framework; many games published on Steam do use CEG and some games also include third-party DRM on top of or instead of it [3] but it is not mandatory to use CEG for your game for it to be published on Steam.
Now, you could argue that Steam encourages the use of DRM but that's a rather different discussion.
As long as you are required to have an active Steam account to play the games you purchased on Steam, an account that can be revoked if you break the terms and agreements, then it is a form of rights management. The simplest form of rights management it has is that it will not allow two simultaneous connections to the same account, regardless if you have nothing but DRM free games in the account.
Steam is a software/store to purchase (not sure if purchase is the correct term) video games. Steam requires you to use an account and all your purchases are logged in it. So when/where-ever you use that account, you have access to the games.
Steam forces you to authenticate online with your account before you can use the Steam software to run the games. If you fail to authenticate or if Steam decides to remove your account or else, you cannot use Steam. That is the DRM part.
You know what else enables you to download your games from all over the place? A file that you put on any of the free or paid file hosting services. For example, I bought Machinarium, downloaded the file and put it on my private online drive.
Steam prevents you from re-selling or even gifting the games you licensed, or from buying and playing games without having all your usage data being sent back to them.
Can you play these free games on Steam without an account that have terms placed upon it?
Sorry, I seriously doubt anyone would ever be able to convince me that Steam is not DRM. If a game that has no third party DRM is purchased on Steam then Steam is required to be running to play that game. It limits you in how you play the game in numerous ways in relation to your account, such as one computer at a time. You cannot buy one copy of a game and give your friend access to your Steam account so the two of you can play multiplayer in that one copy of the game at the same time on the same account.
If you break the terms and agreements of Steam and have your account locked then you lose access to all your games, free or purchased.
Steam is a form of rights management.
Not that I have a problem with Steam as I am currently a happy customer.
> Can you play these free games on Steam without an account that have terms placed upon it?
Yes. You might need Steam to install them, but that's just for delivery. Afterwards you can play them without an account or without having steam installed and on another PC.
To quote: "This is a list of games available on Steam that do not use the Steamworks CEG component, making them effectively DRM-free once installed. This means that you can copy the game folder anywhere you want and launch the .exe directly without being online or having Steam running."
You know, my first thought was that you were wrong. But then I was thinking that maybe something changed after the influx of the new free-to-play games that recently appeared on Steam. So I decided to look into this.
From what I've read you are correct in that Steam can be a delivery service in that some games do not require the Steam client to be active. Although, they do seem in the minority. I found that it interesting that games using DosBox tend to not require Steam running to play. I was not aware of that.
Although, I still stand by my statement that Steam is still DRM in that an account is required to use it. It's just that unlike most DRM, the range of rights management that it supports is broad. As long as an account that can be revoked is required then, admittedly to me, it is a form of rights management.
a) No, because email is the product in of itself. If you had to have an email account, login into your email account through a client, and then access something else that requires the previous two then I would say in that instance that it is DRM. In that case the email client would be the source of the DRM, not the email it gives you.
b) If you are required to have an account for a piece of software that controls your access to other software, be it to use or just download, then yes I see that as a form of rights management. To use my own analogy, I can burn my own DVD with no DRM and play it on my DVD player, but the DRM is still required to play commercial discs; therefore the DRM still exists even though I have an opportunity to not be encumbered by it. Or here's another thought, if someone's account on Steam was revoked, can they still use that account to download the free-to-play games that have no DRM? Granted, they could just create another free account, but still...
With b) it's as I said, I understand your view and you certainly need your account for that one time when you buy the game. So if your account gets closed at a later time you still have full access to the game. But that would make Amazon.com DRM as well as you can't buy your game without having an Amazon account.
In that case, yes I view Amazon as a form of rights management. On their system you are allowed to purchase and take delivery of said game, after that it no longer manages anything anymore.
But I don't think you understand my view. Just because a rights management system lets you do something without encumbering you doesn't suddenly mean it isn't a rights management system.
Your view seems to be that in a few situations Steam operates as a delivery service for a free game that Steam does not restrict you in any way beyond that, therefore it is not a rights management system. My view is that it is because the rights management is clearly in the system, it's just up to the developer to use it or not.
It's even conceivable that Valve could restrict a person's account from downloading a free-to-play game for whatever reason they desire.
The downloading of a free game is the simplest form of rights management it has, it lets you download the game with your account. But in many, if not almost all, other instances it manages your rights based on the criteria of the system and developer.
Steam is DRM, but it was created to balance out the needs of the consumer and producer that hopefully benefits both. Just because most forms of DRM seem to be created to only benefit the producer and not the consumer doesn't make DRM a horrible thing. Therefore, it doesn't seem right to try to explain something like Steam, that can behave as DRM, in a way that makes it seem like it isn't DRM.
By the way, I've enjoyed the discussion, it's given me new things to consider in my viewpoint on DRM and Steam.
IMHO the problem is first of all aesthetically, digital rights minimization does not belong into an open standard.
And on the more technical side, the encrypted media extension working draft [1] says itself:
This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems[...]
Translation, it is not content without flash, they are adding another API, to interact with a flash like plugin. So it archives precisely nothing compared to flash, except to grow the attack surface of the browser.
The sort of DRM that is being pushed for HTML is going about it the entirely wrong way. It will almost certainly result in window-only binary blobs, which is directly in opposition to what HTML should be about.
"HTML should be about"; you mean "Internet should be about"; why to stop at DRM? lets create one for text so nobody can copy our news articles; lets create one for pictures so you can't download our precious photos; anyone supporting this is not seeing the gigantic wormhole it will create just for the sake of watching "Arrested Development" in your web browsing devices (BTW, even TV will be more open than Internet because AFAIK they can't restrict what you record from your TV)
Is actually easier than that; when you use "print" in Chrome an other modern browsers you can select the text and pics there without messing with HTML tags.
I don't know if you've looked at the list of stuff on the Pirate Bay recently, but if you have, you know that piracy is rampant and trivial -- and all the DRM in the world hasn't been able to change that.
EDIT: The famous example case is of DeCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS). That's relevant because before DeCSS there wasn't anyway for people running Linux to watch legally bought DVDs.
Well, in my opinion DRM itself stays evil as long as most (all?) implementations are stopping me from consuming legally obtained content on free systems.
It is evil in proportions never seen before; its blocking access to whats in _your_ computer; under your logic a lot of pdfs shouldn't be allowed to be download and ads shouldn't be allowed to be hidden. I don't know about you but I vote for piracy any day if this is the price for "legal streaming".
I really hope Firefox complies but provides a (obviously non-compliant) way of allowing the user to download the content even if it means legal trouble for them (keeping in mind that donations to fight this fight will not be scarce).
We should not have to label our websites 'FreedomHTML' because we don't use some APIs. Those are the websites which use these specific features which should be called 'SomethingElseHTML'.
I really hope that browser vendors will at least require some kind of explicit opt-in for borderline APIs such as EME.
What I don't get about the DRM issue: If there's no DRM possible with the video tag, then it's IMHO more likely that big content owners won't use the video tag than it is likely that they will go DRM free.
Too many workable alternatives to <video> exist. They might not work as well (not provide as much DOM integration, use more CPU power), but they do work.
So for me the question is: What is more important to us? Getting rid of plugins that are a hassle to keep up-to-date and open a whole lot of privacy and security issues? Or being idealists about keeping media free of DRM?
As long as a lot of media is served using plugins, browser vendors can't disable plugins (just like MS had to back-pedal with cutting plugin support in Win8), as long as <video> and <audio> don't support DRM, media will be shown using plugins.
A way to break the cycle and get rid of the plugins (which is a much worse issue than DRMed content IMHO) is to allow content publishers to use native browser features and a way to allow them to do that is to allow DRM.
One of the great things about the web and it's user interface is that I can edit it on the fly. I can change the css, I can download an adblock plugin, I can selectively change pretty much any aspect of it.
If those adds are served through EMR mixed in with content then I can no longer filter the adds from the content. I can no longer style the content the way I want either.
> A way to break the cycle and get rid of the plugins (which is a much worse issue than DRMed content IMHO) is to allow content publishers to use native browser features and a way to allow them to do that is to allow DRM.
What alternative solutions do you see? If there are no other solution what are the consequences user will face?
EME doesn't get rid of plugins. It just introduces a new class of proprietary plugins. Stick with Flash, I say. At least it's useful for more than just DRM.
Tell me which doctype to use, add the support into chrome and firefox (which is basically an "if doctype htmlFree;then do not load drm; fi") and I will use this tomorrow.
What does this achieve? If a profile only omits features, then browsers that do support EME and other omitted features therefore also support FreedomHTML. So if Chrome supports EME, they can still say they support 100% of the FreedomHTML profile.
To run and view DRM content, you must use closed and by extension, proprietary software. That has always meant increased costs in either price (license) or performance. If one sufficient popular product refuses to pay that cost, the web will become splinted into groups of working vs non-working websites for a subset of users. Given that every company has a incentive to decrease costs, this is just a matter of time.
Hopefully W3C will realize that this is not a future they wish to have.