EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

This DRM proposition definitely needs all the resistance it can get. We cannot allow DRM into our wonderful, open standards. This is not an option. Not at any price.<p>I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue. Have they issued any statements what so ever?<p>Seeing what amazing things the web have enabled the last few decades, purely by being open, who are we to deny the future the same possibilities by locking it all down now? What sort of short-sighted <i>asshole</i> would propose such a thing?<p>To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither.<p>If this goes through though, what I see others are calling out for is a new consortium. If the W3C is hellbent on forking and fragmenting the web, then lets have it. But let's have it on our terms: By creating a new open web standards consortium.

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here:<p>DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications.<p>This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself.<p>Some DRM implementations in the past have been so aggressive in their usurpation of control that they have qualified as malware; the Sony rootkit is a particularly egregious example of this.<p>DRM actively reduces the trustworthiness and security of all machines on which it is installed. It has to by design: its stated purpose is to restrict the capabilities of a general purpose computer.

Good for EFF. DRM is futile.<p>There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell phone camera among other devices).<p>What we've seen is:<p>A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see illegitimate use grow.<p>B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up &#38; protecting our rights &#38; values in the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them.<p>Meaning: DRM all you want. Make it so that you can ONLY see Game of Thrones if you pay $100,000!!! Great! And, imagine how long it'd take for a copy (lower fidelity, sure) to get in the hands of a larger audience that you can't control, who doesn't like you, who you collect no $ from.<p>Or: Drop DRM, &#38; go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that are EASY &#38; fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make your next content even more appealing &#38; marketable.

The market problem is that people want to consume <i>expensive</i> art. There is billions of dollars of interest in making this market clear. The market will not go away because a bunch of hackers find it unethical. As the war on drugs has demonstrated, the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.<p>I see a lot of opposition to DRM <i>on principle</i>. These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question to me is whether DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible... or whether it will take over your devices with God-knows-what secret solutions, which is the situation today. I think the W3C standard is problematic (having read it) but represents a small step in the direction that is less wrong. The third option, an imaginary free-information utopia, is directly against the economic will of the people in general.

I hear lots of objection to DRM in HTML but no alternatives. If EME is rejected and not added to the HTML spec, lets consider some alternatives:<p>1. Leave things as they are, so Flash and Silverlight limp along to serve DRMed content, and native apps are required to watch on devices which don't support plugins. Verdict: Not great, but hey it's how it is now.<p>2. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable<p>3. Lobby the media distributers (Netflix etc) to boycott media owners who won't drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable<p>4. Ask end-users to boycott purchase of un-DRMed content (and no pirate it, as they will only encourage the media owners to use more DRM). Verdict: Highly improbable. Us nerds may do it, but regular folk don't really care about DRM.<p>5. EME is implemented as a convention, but not in the official spec. Verdict: Possible, I think EME will be implemented in IE and Chrome with or without it being in the spec. Mozilla wouldn't I presume.<p>Can anyone think of any others?

when I first heard of DRM in HTML5, the first thing that came to mind was that web apps would be encrypted, and that the only interface people would have would be mouse or touch. This would essentially make the web like blue-ray: great for consuming content and playing scripted games, and not-so-great for everyone else. Also, how long before "safe" browsers only allowed drm-encrypted web apps, to "protect consumers"?<p>I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.

The only true solution to the problem of DRM is to kill Hollywood. It's unlikely to happen, though. Many others have reiterated on this point, so I'm not going to waste my time iterating yet once more.<p><a href="http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html" rel="nofollow">http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html</a>

When I try to view video content, being told that I am not wanted as a user is more common than not. If I go on Hulu, ABC, NBC, and even many YouTube videos, I am not that the maker of the video did not figure out a profitable enough ad model for my country so I should just go away. This country ban is so common because Flash players make it trivial to do so. If you extend the same to all types of web content, I fear this DRM will be used for far more than just some random Hollywood movies.

What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying involved in a post-DRM W3C?<p>It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list:<p><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List</a><p>And start demanding the member organizations to make a public statement as to exactly how far the EME DRM standardization is allowed to advance before they will withdraw from the W3C.

I would never use a browser that implements DRM. As the EFF stated DRM is a back box with the intent of taking control from the user so why the hell should i allow it in my computer.<p>If their content is so important to them they can keep it just stay the hell out of my browser.<p>I value my privacy more then i covet their content.

OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix.<p>Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason.<p>Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dicks. They're listening to all sides.<p>Who cares if there's DRM in the spec, anyway? It doesn't mean people have to use it. And we all know it'll be cracked in a matter of SECONDS upon formal implementation.

The Web is going to get DRM one way or another.<p>Now we can do this the easy way, with standards that are agreed upon across vendors -- or the hard way, with proprietary plug-ins that only work in Windows and Internet Explorer.

What exactly is DRM supposed to achieve? For it to work it seems to need to prevent 100% of all opportunities, worldwide, of duplicating copyrighted material. A single copy is all it takes to seed every single pirated copy. I can't see that the sales of DVDs and Blu-rays are going to dry up any time soon and given how easy it is to copy those how does DRM help at all?

The objection is good, but how exactly is the final decision made by W3C? By majority of participants or some other way?

This is sort of like Linux kernel supporting a fixed ABI for binary modules. There are those who say that it's a good thing and benefits are more than the costs. And then there are those who say that this would be bad and it prevents us from going through a temporary struggle that would eventually lead to a better solution for the long-term.<p>I tend to favor the second camp. Let's not compromise on our vision for the open web. We have gone through a lot and have achieved a lot. A short-term hassle is acceptable for the long-term win.<p>Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we tolerate the intolerant? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance</a>

An argument in favour of the W3C policy is that DRM video plugins could be retired but what about all those sites that attempt to prevent right-click|save-as on photos, or on JavaScript, and why wouldn't they use DRM too? The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?

Mozilla eventually decided to support H.264 in the &#60;video&#62; tag. Is there any indication they will/will not support HTML 5 DRM?

For anyone else having problems loading the page, try Google's cached version here : <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5&#38;strip=1" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...</a>

Twenty years ago, at the rise of Internet, DRM would have been unconceivable. How come we're here now?

This objection, does a solution not help make.

Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on your website.<p>They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.

The way I see it is if DRM is going to be managed in Firefox and Chrome then it wouldn't necessarily block a determined person from circumventing it. Both browsers are open source. HTML5 DRM will only stop people from using regular copy/paste.<p>I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what the right action should have been.