
EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 - c-oreills
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5
======
josteink
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.

I'm honestly surprised that Mozilla haven't been more vocal about this issue.
Have they issued any statements what so ever?

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 _asshole_ would propose such a
thing?

To those who yammer on about Netflix: Allow me to paraphrase Benjamin
Franklin. He who gives up freedom for comfort deserves neither.

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.

~~~
jiggy2011
"Open standards" are about documenting interfaces in such a way as that any
person could develop a compatible implementation, nothing more.

There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From
internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the
web is some hippy utopia is not accurate.

This proposal simply describes a standard protocol for a DRM system to be able
to talk to a web browser. If you don't want to use it, simply choose a browser
that ships with it disabled or disable it yourself.

You're not going to lose access to your favorite sites because of this. The
sites that would want to do this are already implementing paywalls or existing
DRM systems.

~~~
josteink
_There is already a massive amount of proprietary tech running the web. From
internet explorer to the secret algorithms used by google. Pretending that the
web is some hippy utopia is not accurate._

That's a bogus argument and misses the point completely.

That you have closed source systems deployed on the open web is completely OK.
That you have closed sourced browsers interpeting markeup is also completely
OK. As long as the markup and code produced and published is compliant to the
open standards we have all agreed upon.

Because then anyone with the specification can interact with that content.
That means that anyone, of any size, can sit down and implement a fully valid
and compliant web-browser.

This latest proposal from W3C means an end to that. Having the HTML
specification will not be enough to create software able to render all the
content on the web. Your browser will need to be "sanctioned" and "supported"
by the DRM-vendors in order to work on the web.

New platforms (FirefoxOS, Tizen, etc), new browsers, any new players at all
and all open source endeavours are effectively shut out from this new web the
W3C is drafting. That is unacceptable.

This is a disastrous departure from any former W3C specification and directly
in opposition to the W3C's own mission statement.

We are only left to guess what sort of corruption has lead to W3C sinking this
low. Whatever happened to allow this rot, a new consortium seems like a good
way to solve it.

~~~
jiggy2011
Not at all, your browser does not need to be sanctioned.

Anybody can build a browser that speaks HTTP and can send HTML pages around.

There is no mandate that you integrate DRM to be standards compliant, it's
perfectly valid to write a browser that simply says "no" to any requests to
perform DRM functions.

[https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
med...](https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
media/encrypted-media.html)

You can simply implement a "clear key" system which does not require any CDM.

~~~
belorn
That misses the point. While anybody can built partial web-browsers, they
can't build competitive alternatives to those sanctioned by DRM-vendors.

Just speaking HTTP and partially parsing HTML pages does not a web-browser
make.

~~~
jiggy2011
Yes, you can.

You are free to support whichever content protection systems you want to
support. The only DRM mechanism which is part of the standard is clearkey
which is DRM in the same way that SSL is DRM, i.e not at all.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5791579>

~~~
josteink
You mean you are free to implement a second class citizen on this new, closed
down and Hollywood-driven web.

Yeah. That sounds really sexy. That sounds like the pinnacle of achievements
for open standards.

~~~
jiggy2011
Hollywood does not have jurisdiction over the majority of web. They cannot
force you to use DRM.

~~~
vetinari
They can lock you out, when you are not using DRM.

~~~
jiggy2011
They can only lock you out of their content (as they are already doing). They
can't lock you out of HN for example.

~~~
vetinari
This is problem for you, if you are browser creator: "your browser sucks, I
cannot watch Hulu".

------
duncan_bayne
I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating
here:

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.

This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I
can't audit it myself.

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.

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.

~~~
alipang
DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're
talking about.

As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise
your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it.

To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very
glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like
surveillance, that are not opt-in.

~~~
duncan_bayne
> As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist

> society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer.

> Don't like it? Don't use it.

I agree, but there's more to it than that. From the W3C site:

"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that
develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web."

... and ...

"One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people,
whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language,
culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability."

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of a capitalist society,
to lobby the W3C to refuse the addition of EME. It is inimical to their own
stated goals (there are other conflicts too; see
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html> for details).

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the initiation of force. Companies should be
free to build their own DRM systems, and others to use or not use them as they
choose.

But the W3C should have no part of that, and the HTML5 standard should not be
crippled by the inclusion of DRM.

Another angle to consider is our cultural heritage. More and more of that is
moving to the Web; if we tie it up with DRM, bitrot will mean that in a
generation or two most of it will be inaccessible.

~~~
alipang
I don't see how DRM is incompatible with their goals. Of course one might
argue that DRM might be platform specific. However, I very much doubt this
standard will make DRM _more_ platform specific than it already is.

~~~
shawnz
> However, I very much doubt this standard will make DRM more platform
> specific than it already is.

Of course not! In fact, due to the nature of the web, it will make DRM in
general less platform-specific! The problem is that HTML will become more
platform-specific.

~~~
smackmybishop
How will this make the binary-only, proprietary DRM blobs less platform
specific, exactly?

~~~
shawnz
I suspect most DRM today exists for Windows only. Thanks to Android, there are
now a ton of consumer devices powered by Linux that can browse the web. If
publishers started using EME, they would probably be encouraged to compile
Windows _and_ Linux blobs for this reason.

~~~
duncan_bayne
I disagree. The CEO of the W3C thinks this unlikely, and there's already the
example of Netflix. They are one of the primary agitators behind EME, and they
refuse to make their system available on Linux.

~~~
wavefunction
So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for
every possible OS out there?

Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

~~~
duncan_bayne
> So you want to demand that Netflix provide at their expense a solution for
> every possible OS out there?

>

> Don't like it, don't partake. I can't understand this mentality...

What mentality? Perhaps you should read my other posts. To summarise, my
position is:

\- if Netflix wants to build their own DRM system, fine

\- if they don't want to include my chosen operating system, that's their
perogative, they just lose out on my money

\- what is _not_ okay is for Netflix to lobby the W3C to include DRM in HTML5

The point I'm trying to make is that having a DRM standard in HTML5 does not
mean that Netflix will suddenly start to support Linux. Several posters have
expressed this idea, and it's just plain incorrect.

~~~
wavefunction
I guess I agree with you then, and thank you for clarifying.

------
johnvschmitt
Good for EFF. DRM is futile.

There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell
phone camera among other devices).

What we've seen is:

A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see
illegitimate use grow.

B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up & protecting our rights & values in
the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them.

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.

Or: Drop DRM, & go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that
are EASY & fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make
your next content even more appealing & marketable.

~~~
benatkin
No, what's futile is this objection by the EFF. But I think it's a token
gesture, so it probably doesn't bother them that much.

~~~
Anonazon
I've really been disillusioned by EFF lately. It seems like they're more of a
black hole of activist's dollars than anything productive. When I donate, I
like my dollars to go to more productive and practical use (like FSF) than to
support libertarian ideals wrapped in a feel good presentation.

~~~
mwcampbell
The FSF is opposing this proposed W3C standard too, of course. What's wrong
with having the EFF oppose it too?

------
cynicalkane
The market problem is that people want to consume _expensive_ 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.

I see a lot of opposition to DRM _on principle_. 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.

~~~
bcoates
The enthusiasm against DRM is mostly based on principle because the
technological argument is so uninteresting. "DRM is part of an standard s.t.
required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open,
opt-in and extensible" isn't possible and this is non-controversial among
anyone not in the business of trying to sell it to someone who doesn't know
that.

~~~
cynicalkane
DRM is just a math problem (encryption) coupled with a hardware problem
(retaining control of the results). The industry in, say, video games has
settled on an equilibrium of making it very hard but not impossible to crack
the hardware. But uncrackable encryption hardware already exists, it would
just be inconvenient to make it uncrackable inside an XBox.

But whether the _methods_ of DRM are open or closed is an implementation
detail. Nobody thinks that TLS being open makes it crackable. But if users and
programmers know the capabilities and requirements of DRM solutions, they can
sequester them from the rest of the computer.

~~~
mwcampbell
All of the crypto in the world is worthless for a DRM system if a user can
easily circumvent the system by replacing one of the components between the
black-box DRM module and the hardware in order to get a perfect digital copy
of the "protected" stream. This is why "content protection" systems, like the
one introduced in Windows Vista, tend to be so over-reaching; they want to
create a leak-proof pipe between the "protected" media and our senses.

~~~
cynicalkane
That's a last mile problem the industry doesn't need to solve. How many people
would rather hack hardware than pay money to watch TV and play video games? Of
course, if it becomes cost-effective to hardware encrypt the entire stream, I
don't think the lack of a W3C standard will make any difference in stopping
it.

~~~
bcoates
> How many people would rather hack hardware than pay money to watch TV and
> play video games?

It only takes one. Everyone else just uses that cracked copy.

I'm not worried about DRM working, I'm worried about it not working in a way
that gets in my way as someone whose time is generally worth more than the
hassle of finding movies on bittorrent.

~~~
nullc
This has an expedient solution of only making devices which are able to play
DRMed media (perhaps with permissive flags), and having all authoring tools
use a per-user content creator key. Then the same broadcast encryption keying
that allows players to be selectively disable also allows the cracked
transcoder to be disabled.

Of course, this isn't terribly compatible with general purpose computing but
operating systems intended for the public have been moving away from general
purpose computing for some time and tables and mobile devices are pretty close
to that now.

If we go far enough down that path the makers of these handicapped devices can
even get legislative help in preventing competition from more user friendly
devices by outlawing their sale as was the case for macrovision.

------
JonoW
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:

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.

2\. Lobby the media owners to drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable

3\. Lobby the media distributers (Netflix etc) to boycott media owners who
won't drop DRM. Verdict: Highly improbable

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.

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.

Can anyone think of any others?

~~~
Daiz
We leave things as they are. If content distributors refuse to play without
DRM, let them stick to inconvenient existing plugins. The DRM-insisting
gatekeepers will ultimately need the web more than the web needs them, so
they'll have to concede _eventually_ , even if it takes a good while before it
happens.

~~~
jiggy2011
Why do they need the web? If the only way to watch Game of Thrones is to
install a standalone application then people will simply install the
standalone application.

~~~
JonoW
I think this is the crux of the issue - should the web be a general purpose
platform? Or do we draw a line somewhere and say some tasks, like watching
protected video isn't something it should be doing. Personally I think all
video consumption is a good fit for the web, it's seem awkward to split
protected and unprotected video.

------
chris_mahan
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"?

I agree with the EFF that DRM should not be in HTML5.

~~~
ivanca
That's the only natural evolution; for example the news sites will say:

"Why the movie industry have protection but we don't? We need HTML5 DRM in our
writings, is our copyright less important than theirs? I say no sir!"

And slowly an internet where you can't use browser extensions, where you can't
copy anything you read, where you depend on the existence of a company, a
functional internet connection to play (just once) the content you bought, but
a content that you certainly don't own.

~~~
taybenlor
I feel like you're falling trap to the Slippery Slope fallacy

~~~
ivanca
I wish I had your naivety; but I already sow things like a media center that
counts heads and will stop the movie if the amount of people exceeds the
number allowed by the purchased licence...

[http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-
kine...](http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-
patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa)

------
kunai
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.

<http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html>

~~~
zanny
Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open
technology and they flounder into obscurity.

They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the
law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential
over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).

~~~
alipang
I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to
gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as
long as government is too large to really care about the little guy.

Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as
the US government or (to some extent) the EU.

Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way to get
laws acted in your own best interest.

~~~
youngerdryas
Having different laws in every state is exactly why most of the world can't
watch Netflix. The EU is trying to consolidate things which gives incentives
to negotiate contracts. The last thing the EU needs is more Balkanization as
companies can't afford to comply with twenty different regulatory schemes.

~~~
zanny
If the most powerful nation conglomerate in the world has to appease a
corporation and negotiate, you are already off the deep end.

The world can't get netflix because big studios want to release content where
they want when they want, and instant data transmission over great distance
impedes that if everyone can watch the latest show in their home country
before they had 3 months to buy the box set in stores.

------
dendory
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.

------
bcoates
What's the Mozilla Foundation's position on this? Are they planning on staying
involved in a post-DRM W3C?

It's about time to for the anti-DRM pressure groups to go down this list:

<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List>

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.

~~~
cmircea
I am not sure of the official position, but I seriously doubt Mozilla will
EVER implement this. They've been opposing H.264, which is a lesser evil
(patents) than outright DRM.

~~~
blinker
They stopped opposing H.264 once they needed it for Firefox OS. I'd expect
Mozilla to support the W3C DRM stuff as soon as someone makes Netflix a
requirement for their Firefox OS phone. Maybe it won't be Mozilla but someone
shipping Firefox OS will do the work. Then Mozilla will feel pressure to take
the patch they provide. They're in a difficult position now that they're in
the mobile phone OS market.

~~~
tmzt
Or the very real possibility that Netflix (etc.) won't even be on the Firefox
OS platform without EME.

Since Firefox OS builds on an Android userland there could be overlap in the
hardware-mediated playback of protected content with Android devices based on
the same SOC.

To be clear, after reading the EME spec it's primary a vehicle for
transmitting the state of third-party module to Javascript, that module being
permitted access to the media element backing a video or audio tag and to
perform the final rendering of the content to an output device.

Those who are saying this spec precludes open implementations of a user agent
(web browser) should probably read the spec. Some CDM vendors will restrict
their plugin from working on open browsers, but there is no reason to do that
as the CDM can be the unit processing the protected stream and rendering it.
This means that open browsers can implement this spec and use CDMs that
conform to an open ABI without compromising the protection of the content.

The CDM if used this way will be responsible for rendering a video or audio
stream, not a shared graphics context like Flash or Java, and overlay graphics
and UI will be implemented in standard HTML not in the closed CDM module.

------
Fuxy
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.

If their content is so important to them they can keep it just stay the hell
out of my browser.

I value my privacy more then i covet their content.

------
VonGuard
OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having
DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
jlgreco
Who cares if Netflix needs it? If Netflix wants to do DRM in the browser, then
they can continue to do it the painful way with traditional proprietary
plugins. Why should we oblige them and dirty the standard in the process?

~~~
VonGuard
Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft. Open standards
are a way to ensure no specific company has control over stuff like this.

~~~
jlgreco
> _Because not doing so concedes this type of market to Microsoft._

Bullshit.

1) I am able to gleefully avoid it these days, but in the past flash worked
with Linux. Furthermore, all relevant DRM systems work with Apple devices
including OSX. Netflix works on Android, and on Google's ChromeOS.

2) Even if it did, who gives a shit? I'd rather have people who _absolutely
must_ watch netflix on their laptop do it with windows than have the standard
dirtied with this shit.

3) _Nothing about this shit being added to the standard will make Netflix work
on Linux with open-source browsers anyway._

You are high if you think this will allow you to use Netflix on your GNU/Linux
box. Netflix already has their shit working with google-chrome, on a Linux
kernel, in ChromeOS (Linux, but not "GNUy", for lack of better terminology).
They don't allow that to work with regular GNU/Linux because they don't trust
the rest of the stack to keep their precious bits secret.

~~~
quaint-
Netflix actually already "works" in Linux, or at least did back when I last
looked it up, and most probably their CDM would as well. I'm of course
speaking of using wine. (Having not actually tested the solution, I cannot
verify it nor tell about its shortcomings.)

Or perhaps they would rely on secure/trusted path this time. I doubt that -
the hardware simply isn't there for their customers.

Anyhow, I certainly wouldn't want W3C to endorse any type of DRM, or have them
make it easier to abuse DRM. It's a _good_ thing that Flash and Silverlight
are restricted to PCs. It's a _good_ thing that plugins annoy people; it makes
them less desirable. We really shouldn't be building a new framework for
plugins on all platforms.

Furthermore, I'd like to assure everyone reading this that DRM-free media is
(still) thriving on the Internet. It's unfortunate that some people fail to
play along; this only means that money doesn't go to the right people even if
it's their media that's being exchanged.

~~~
lucian1900
Netflix only sort of maybe works with Wine + Firefox. If you're lucky.

------
bitwize
The Web is going to get DRM one way or another.

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.

~~~
lambda
The Web has DRM, implemented in proprietary plugins: Flash (and to a lesser
degree, Silverlight).

And this proposal involves DRM implemented with proprietary plugins (known as
CDMs). There is no requirement that CDMs be available across platforms, on
open operating systems, available to license by any vendor. The CDMs are the
new proprietary plugins, they just happen to do less than Flash, leaving more
of it up to the browser.

Is it really so much better to trade one proprietary form of DRM for another?
What does that actually get us? More crappy services, where Hollywood decides
on a month by month basis which particular services get to offer its content,
so you need to sign up for 5 different services just to watch all of the
content that you watch? And each one of them supports different set-top boxes,
doesn't work on open platforms, and restricts you from backing up media that
you have bought?

This isn't improvement; this is just wanting to get browser vendors to
implement anti-features that users object to, instead of getting Adobe to do
it.

~~~
Drakim
The worst part is that Flash and Java aren't going to go away anytime soon
either. You basically have to have both, and the web will be a lot harder to
navigate on anything but a Windows machine.

------
ollysb
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?

~~~
tacticus
It allows you to restrict what products OEMs are allowed to make and sell
forcing them to license shit from you.

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

------
nileshtrivedi
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.

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.

Edit: This is also similar to the classic paradox of tolerance: Should we
tolerate the intolerant? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance>

------
holloway
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?

~~~
josteink
_The EME draft doesn't just handle video, does it?_

For now it does. But if we let it pass, you better believe that slippery slope
we've went into is going to get a whole lot steeper.

The open web only has one option: Fighting DRM entirely and fundamentally. We
don't need Netflix on the web, and definitely not at the cost of our fabulous,
open standards' core values.

------
ancarda
Mozilla eventually decided to support H.264 in the <video> tag. Is there any
indication they will/will not support HTML 5 DRM?

~~~
blinker
Not supporting it would be bad for Firefox OS. It would mean that platform is
locked out from streaming video solutions (ie. Netflix). This would discourage
carriers from supporting Firefox OS. On desktop it doesn't matter so much.
They have a marketshare to make a difference when they take a stand. However
now that they're in the phone market, if no carrier will take Firefox OS due
to the streaming video issue then the OS is dead before it really begins.

~~~
josteink
I think you generalize the absurd US cellular carrier situation on to the
world.

Most places in the world you have carriers which provides phone services,
accessible by a SIM-card, and you have phones, which accepts SIM cards.

These are two entirely separate things which you choose entirely at your own
bidding. You chose the carrier which provides you with a service matching your
needs at a price you are willing to pay. And you use the SIM card they provide
in the phone you have chosen entirely separate.

In a world like this a carrier doesn't "support" a phone. That would be like
my ISP having to "support" my Dell PC, or me having to buy a PC from a limited
selection offered by my ISP. It's an absurd position.

Most of the world does not work like the completely and fundamentally broken
US cellphone market, and generalizing based on that is doomed to reap highly
inaccurate results.

~~~
blinker
I may be generalizing incorrectly but given Mozilla's lack of comment either
for or against the W3C DRM initiative I think they're not wanting to
jeopardize partner arrangements by saying anything negative. Even if they have
no deals requiring DRM, why turn off potential partners with statements that
don't need to be made yet.

Usually they're publicly all over this sort of thing. I don't see any Mozilla
people commenting in this thread about what they think either which is unusual
but probably wise.

On the other hand I don't see statements from Opera either and they're usually
pretty anti this sort of thing. Maybe they're both doing behind the scenes
work to scuttle the DRM initiative and don't want to make it public yet.

------
byuu
For anyone else having problems loading the page, try Google's cached version
here :
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-
makes-formal-objection-drm-html5&strip=1)

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

------
mythz
This objection, does a solution not help make.

~~~
mikeash
Sure it does. "Don't" is a perfectly reasonable solution here. It won't
satisfy all parties, but not all parties are worth satisfying.

~~~
mythz
The future of everyone being able to view online video (e.g. Netflix/Hulu/BBC)
without a plugin is not getting anywhere closer.

~~~
mikeash
Sure looks like it's getting closer to me. The amount of content I can view
without a plugin has absolutely exploded over the past few years. Sure, big
Hollywood names aren't in there yet, but it's not like they're the only ones
who make videos worth watching.

~~~
mythz
What you mean by "big Hollywood" the mainstream population refers to as "TV"
and "Movies". None of which we're able to watch without a plugin. I do all my
TV watching online (95% on Netflix/Hulu), even most of the videos I watch on
YouTube require flash, despite being opt-in to using the HTML5 video player.

~~~
mikeash
Your statement was "closer". Even if the video watchable without plugins is
only 1% of the total, your statement is still wrong if it was e.g. 0.1% a few
years ago.

Regarding YouTube, I do most of my YouTubing on iOS devices, and it's _very_
rare to find a video that doesn't work, so the non-plugin support is good. Why
it doesn't work in your browser, I couldn't say, but at this point I suspect
it's more about your setup than YouTube not supporting it at all.

------
roopeshv
Here's a radical idea: If you don't want DRM on your website, don't put DRM on
your website.

They are not making anyone use DRM against their will.

~~~
kunai
That's extremely narrow-minded.

First of all, the DRM is proprietary. Those using open-source browsers like
Firefox or Chromium _won't_ be able to view any sites that push DRM at their
will; especially if it's integrated INTO the web standard itself. It doesn't
only affect web developers, it affects _users_ , and the fact that you can't
see that is astonishing. I don't know whether to be appalled or amazed, to be
honest.

Normally, when DRM is implemented, it has been done so through plugins and
other proprietary solutions, but the core technologies in the web -- HTML,
CSS, and JavaScript -- have been _open_ , and they should stay open.
Implementing proprietary DRM in an open standard is a slap in the face for
Mozilla and Google, who want an open Web. And everyone else wants an open Web
too, not just the big organizations.

And third, let's just face it -- DRM fucking sucks.

~~~
mwcampbell
Actually, Google isn't as innocent as you might think. They acquired a DRM
company called Widevine, and the Widevine DRM system is now integrated with
recent Google Chrome dev builds.

~~~
acqq
Maybe that's why is Google Chrome installer more complicated than some
rootkits.

------
walid
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.

I have a feeling that the EFF is over-reacting, but only time will tell what
the right action should have been.

~~~
fafner
That's why the W3C proposal is a proposal for an API which proprietary plug-
ins would use. The plug-in will do the decoding and rendering. Therefore the
EFF is absolutely not over-reacting.

[https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
med...](https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-
media/encrypted-media.html)

~~~
walid
I'm sorry but you're overlooking that this is already the case with Flash. Our
other alternative to Flash is to use a native app. Both ways are not web
friendly in that they both completely rely on closed standards. This is one of
my gripes with Flash. It is a lock-in tool that is controlled by one company,
namely Adobe, who isn't interested in my security and gives me a player for
free to collect money from publishers. Native platforms, aka apps, on the
other hand create a lock-in that completely ignores the browser.

This draft however helps create a common standard, albeit closed, but
standardized in operation which means there will be competition on other many
fronts: better encryption extensions, secure, respecting privacy, all of which
don't describe Flash or even QuickTime or whatever pops to mind.

To point out the irony of labeling DRM as the ultimate evil: Do you use
iOS/Android/Windows Phone/BlackBerry 10/Kindle?

