W3C Abandons Consensus, Standardizes DRM with 58.4% Support

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The World Wide Web Consortium has gone ahead with a DRM standard that conflicts with accessibility, security research, archiving, and competition: it’s called EME, and it allows DRM-protected content published online to be decoded by web browsers without the need for plugins thanks to loading content decryption modules. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has tendered their resignation from the W3C, as their objections fell on deaf ears.

This is a bad day for the W3C: it's the day it publishes a standard designed to control, rather than empower, web users. That standard that was explicitly published without any protections -- even the most minimal compromise was rejected without discussion, an intransigence that the W3C leadership tacitly approved. It's the day that the W3C changed its process to reward stonewalling over compromise, provided those doing the stonewalling are the biggest corporations in the consortium.
 
The idea of this opening up an attack surface is very disturbing, I need to look into that more. Thats the last thing future browsers need, more opportunity for Sony-like root-kits to come along and get re-purposed by hackers.
 
That really helps to streamline encryption breaking.

My thoughts, as well. In a few years after this gets rolled out, it will have evolved into a patched and band-aided mess due to the constant hacking, requiring people to jump through many hoops of validation/verification just to pull up certain web pages.

"To get to page 2 of our article, please scan you fingerprint, iris, face recognition, voice print, confirm your rolling code from your authenticator app on your phone/tablet, click the confirmation link in the email you registered with, then proceed to the second stage of all this confirming..."
 
I'm curious how Adobe and Microsoft see this. Content providers such as Netflix have relied on DRM supported by Flash and Silverlight. With HTML5 now having DRM, they can switch to an open standard. Adobe and Microsoft are unlikely to see any revenue from it. Although this is an old article, Netflix plotting move to HTML5 video - but only if DRM works. So it looks like this will happen.
 
As long as it helps get rid of Flash, I'm for it. Still waiting for HBO GO to dump that she-eye-t
 
FWIW, here is their reasoning: https://www.w3.org/blog/2017/02/on-eme-in-html5/

TLDR: DRM is 100% going to happen, no matter what, no matter how hard everyone boycotts, no matter how much everyone hates it. W3C believes they can either standardize it and be in control of it, or can boycott it and let everyone roll their own pile of DRM crap via JavaScript/Flash/Silverlight/Apps.
 
EME doesn't standardize the DRM itself, it standardizes the interface, and effectively becomes the plugin. S othe attack surface is much smaller than Flash or Silverlight. Hate DRM all you want, but it's not going away and this is a good way to make it work in a much safer and saner fashion than previously. Components interacting with EME are extremely limited in what they're allowed to do.
 
How many times did DRM prevent crackers and pirate overlords from getting the content? ZERO
How many times did DRM interfere with the experiences of regular users? UNCOUNTABLE

Then why the fuck do we still insist on using this shit? When will they realize that it doesn't go trough so well when they slap handcuffs on you when entering the store, and they tell you it's ok we'll get them off when you leave, but what if you just want to steal our stuff and resell it at the market next door.
 
Its just like they are prepping everyone to become targets for a full on digital attack....lets all just upload all of our file to one spot.....oh wait.
 
Then why the fuck do we still insist on using this shit? When will they realize that it doesn't go trough so well when they slap handcuffs on you when entering the store, and they tell you it's ok we'll get them off when you leave, but what if you just want to steal our stuff and resell it at the market next door.

How much money is made by the ecosystem around DRM?

Stonewall they did, it's in their interest, which as usual is not the public interest.

Parasites have to make a living too.
 
How many times did DRM prevent crackers and pirate overlords from getting the content? ZERO
How many times did DRM interfere with the experiences of regular users? UNCOUNTABLE

How much money is made by the ecosystem around DRM?

It's not about preventing, it's about delaying. If they can delay the content from hitting pirate sites by a week or two, they consider that a win.
 
How many times did DRM prevent crackers and pirate overlords from getting the content? ZERO
How many times did DRM interfere with the experiences of regular users? UNCOUNTABLE

Then why the fuck do we still insist on using this shit? When will they realize that it doesn't go trough so well when they slap handcuffs on you when entering the store, and they tell you it's ok we'll get them off when you leave, but what if you just want to steal our stuff and resell it at the market next door.
It isn't really so much the delaying, but making sure that no "regular" person can do it easily. The funny thing about DRM is that it is 100% about being more inconvenient to people who would pirate it otherwise. Regular users love convenience, you see it all the time. You give people some kind of convenient way to do things they will do it that way even if they have to pay, but if you make it convenient and free then everything else will always lose. Piracy has only one downside for most users and that is it is difficult to find the material. Having DRM enabled, even a shitty one, lets content owners stop casual piracy and that is all they really have to do. The real hardcore pirates won't be stopped by it and will find away around it, but no matter how hard pirates try, it will never be as convenient as just paying some monthly fee to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc... for regular users.

Why do you think those Kodi plugins were considered the biggest threat to the TV/Movie industry that the industry went on an all out FUD campaign regarding the completely free Kodi program that had nothing to do with those plugins? The answer is simple they saw how EASY it made it for the regular user to buy one of the "pre-installed" Kodi boxes to watch pirated content. Regular users will flock to a device that only had a one time buy in fee that offered free content. That's why they started lambasting the devices and getting them pulled from online stores to stop the convenience factor. You'd think that wouldn't be enough to stop "regular" users but it really is. I mean "regular" users buy listening devices from companies that can spy on them to make their lives even more convenient so they don't have to do that horrible thing of logging into a computer then visiting the appropriate website to look stuff up or order something. :facepalm:
 
It isn't really so much the delaying, but making sure that no "regular" person can do it easily. The funny thing about DRM is that it is 100% about being more inconvenient to people who would pirate it otherwise.
The reason I don't subscribe to any streaming service is DRM. Because DRM means locking the way you can consume the material, and that's inconvenient to me. I'd rather wait a year to get a movie, than to use their shitty players, and deal with net outages and such bullshit.
Having DRM enabled, even a shitty one, lets content owners stop casual piracy and that is all they really have to do.
You see, this is what I don't get. You say casual piracy, but the only people with access to the content are those who subscribe to it. So they already paid for it. So if I subscribe to a service then rip the stream, because there is no DRM on it that makes jack shit difference to them in terms of income. So why do they feel the need to prevent the few customers who would record things like that?

It's no different to me than recording a broadcast from regular TV. It makes me a hell of a lot more content if I have what I paid for locally. To this day I consume even youtube the same way: When I find something I like, I don't "like" it, I download it, and put it in my archive for later consumption. That's the only way I feel I can watch the content again without having to worry about it being removed or the internet not being available or the service being down when I want to watch it again.

The real hardcore pirates won't be stopped by it and will find away around it, but no matter how hard pirates try, it will never be as convenient as just paying some monthly fee to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc... for regular users.
I've just tried amazon, and it couldn't be more inconvenient. I've tried a dozen movies before I found one that wasn't geolocked for me, then the player was a disaster, there wasn't even a way to change stream quality. I was forced to watch on shitty quality and I was told it should switch to high quality automatically when the bandwidth is enough. I've said fuck that noise and cancelled my subscription within 15 minutes of starting it. It's nothing but inconvenient for me. Compared to clicking on a torrent in a list, and a few minutes later watching the content in the best available quality. Without any worries. I'd gladly pay for any service offering the same level of convenience and quality.

Why do you think those Kodi plugins were considered the biggest threat to the TV/Movie industry that the industry went on an all out FUD campaign regarding the completely free Kodi program that had nothing to do with those plugins? The answer is simple they saw how EASY it made it for the regular user to buy one of the "pre-installed" Kodi boxes to watch pirated content. Regular users will flock to a device that only had a one time buy in fee that offered free content. That's why they started lambasting the devices and getting them pulled from online stores to stop the convenience factor. You'd think that wouldn't be enough to stop "regular" users but it really is. I mean "regular" users buy listening devices from companies that can spy on them to make their lives even more convenient so they don't have to do that horrible thing of logging into a computer then visiting the appropriate website to look stuff up or order something. :facepalm:
But regular users can't figure out how to rip a stream or watch it in a 3rd party application even if it's drm free anyway. That's why I don't see how "blessing" paying users with DRM makes any kind of difference.
 
It's not about preventing, it's about delaying. If they can delay the content from hitting pirate sites by a week or two, they consider that a win.
Well, then they're shit out of luck with me, because I'm willing to wait years for the content to become available in the format and quality I find acceptable.
 
We have a system where "control" is essential for monetization where the actual creators get peanuts and middle men eat a lions share of the revenue.

That controls transpires into what is created, where you end up with a myriad of "safe" products be it in film, gaming, music, etc thus a ton of reboots in film, "whoos" in pop music and Civ VI made for 5 year olds who should be playing farmville instead.

Finally the middle men "have to" control how that created content is consumed. Monetize to the maximum, charge us double for 4k content vs HD? Why not, when stonewalling works? If there are any issues you can hijack any common sphere of discussion be it public or private.

Delay today, prevent tomorrow, pirating is supporting terrorism, remember.
 
Its only a matter of time before someone develops a browser that allows access to everything without any of the DRM controls in it. The more they try to thwart it the more ways people find a way around it.
 
Back
Top