
BBC demands DRM for HTML5 - afoketunji
http://boingboing.net/2013/02/16/bbc-betrays-the-public-demand.html
======
trunnell
Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in
this thread.

Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media
Extensions (EME).

[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)

The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go
check it out.

The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use
"decryption modules" that already exist elsewhere, like in the OS platform.
There are APIs to determine what sorts of "decryption modules" are available
and to use them to decrypt media.

If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to
support these extensions. 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. Premium video on the web requires either
plug-ins or EME. I think most of us would pick premium web video + EME, rather
than premium web video + plug-ins, or (perish the thought) no premium video on
the web at all.

BTW, open source browsers can easily implement this spec since it doesn't
require the browser to implement a "decryption module" themselves. Also, there
is a mode called "clear key" that can be used if the underlying platform
doesn't have any "decryption module" available.

Disclosure: I work at Netflix on streaming video in browsers.

~~~
dlitz
> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top...

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.

~~~
gph
>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.

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??

~~~
lucian1900
Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.

~~~
gph
Care to elucidate that point?

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...

~~~
mmastrac
DRM didn't stop House of Cards from appearing on PB:

<http://thepiratebay.se/search/house%20of%20cards/0/99/0>

I don't see Netflix going out of business because of this.

~~~
gph
Yea, but my point is different than a cracked version leaking into bittorrent.
That doesn't have a drastically large footprint.

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.

~~~
mmastrac
How would they? Even ripping DRM-free YouTube videos is beyond most people. I
don't see YouTube piracy as a big world problem.

~~~
gph
What DRM-free Youtube videos? Youtube uses DRM-enabled flash player and locks
down the ability of people to copy videos.

Besides Youtube is a free service, that everyone basically assumes will
continuously be there. You're bringing up non-related factors.

~~~
mmastrac
YouTube DL works from the command-line. YouTube videos are _not_ DRM-
encumbered. They are just harder to get because they can no longer be
requested by a simple HTTP call.

<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.

------
samarudge
First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC
is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-
profit studios. They also regularly carry movies. All of which they put up on
their iPlayer service.

As an example, you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC
iPlayer (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/>).

While there is an argument that programs produced by the BBC should be DRM
free, there is no way larger, and independent studios would allow their
content uploaded DRM free.

Personally, I want the BBC (and other sites) to be able to use technology like
HTML5 video, because I don't like flash, and it's unlikely the studios are
going to suddenly decide their OK with DRM free video, I'm not necessarily
/for/ DRM in HTML5, but I don't see any other way around it for now.

While you can argue all you want about how DRM is useless and easily broken,
as yet no-one has managed to convince big TV and movie (and even game) studios
of that. The BBC is just doing what it feels it needs to in order to be able
to deliver video using the latest technology, while keeping it's partners
happy.

~~~
Udo
I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing
for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil.

The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push
requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why
entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only
be consumed by, say, the Apple app store.

That's also the reason why this will never fly. Even if/when the W3C gave in
to these demands, browser makers other than Apple and Microsoft would never
stand for it. And even if they did somehow, it would be trivial for the open
source community to release one without those features.

I'm not saying the outrage is entirely misplaced, because it's important to
keep an eye out for what those companies have planned for our future. But as
far as the fear of actual threat is concerned this should not alarm anybody.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_this push requires converting the web into a closed platform_

How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to
"unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

~~~
Udo
Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from
the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are
_all_ open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's
possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for
DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and
then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. The whole thing is just
not designed to disobey the user. Keep in mind that this would have to cover
the _entire chain_ , from the network connection all the way up to the screen
you are allowed to play the content on.

For that kind of DRM to work, your browser would have to be turned into a
black box that is difficult to inspect, designed to be controlled entirely
from remote, and illegal to alter.

If this series of events were to unfold, closing the browser would _not_ be
done to benefit the content industry directly. They don't need that to deliver
content, because they can always just put out an app and pump out their stuff
that way. They can also just make a plugin if they want to deliver video
content through the browser - which would possible with current technology
today. That's not why they are proposing this. Instead this move would serve
solely to restrict user freedom to use anything but approved apps for approved
content.

So to make it clear why this outrage exists: there is absolutely no technical
need to include this natively in HTML5. The proposal does not aim to give
something to the content industry, it is instead designed to take something
away from everybody else. That's not a subtle difference. But, as I said
earlier, it's doubtful it will/could play out this way. The only way to
achieve this "dream" is by making the web as it exists today illegal to use,
and then enforce that ban through extensive ISP surveillance. In which case a
DRM solution for HTML5 wouldn't matter anyway.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then
you'd have to outlaw open source implementations._

ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly
encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your
window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess
it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys, and
making it illegal to transmit those. So? As you said, they can deliver their
stuff in proprietary apps already, what is lost when they use proprietary keys
instead?

~~~
Udo
Yes, really. Encryption in the browser today works exactly the other way
around. It's sole purpose is to ensure data integrity on my behalf as things
are transmitted between me and my chosen endpoint. The endpoint is _not_
protected from me, and I can do whatever I want with this data once it arrives
in my browser. DRM would be the antithesis of that. The problem is not they
keys, it's what they keys can control or not.

~~~
jshen
They aren't trying to "properly" lock it down. They are trying to bring html5
up to the same level as current flash based solutions.

~~~
xj9
I'm pretty sure you can do that already. HTTP has authentication, HTTPS gives
you content encryption, rate limiting can prevent content scraping, I mean if
you really wanted to you could do something with canvas (the hardware
acceleration stuff that's being worked on could even make it perform fairly
well, I suppose). Its not the same way but it could give the same result.

~~~
jshen
You can't do it already. What you described is not the same level as current
flash solutions.

~~~
xj9
Well, I'm not particularly familiar with DRM apart from not liking it. What
exactly does flash do that makes the DRM-loving lawyers consider it
acceptable? From my point of view the kind of control offered by HTTPS and
normal browser authentication is enough but the MPAA and RIAA (or the BBC, for
that matter) clearly don't agree.

~~~
jshen
In flash, the bits that are coming down over HTTPS are DRMed. If you save them
to your local disk you can't play it directly.

------
lukifer
I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if
it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster,
etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is
always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just
has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users.

I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the board, including strong
consumer protections and freedoms for "owned" content. But if the vendors are
using DRM anyway (and they are), I'd rather they do so in a standards-based,
interoperable way.

~~~
betterunix
"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users
can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes."

Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the
business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to
move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip
makers might vanish!

Why should we be concerned about _obsolete_ business models failing? Why
should we be concerned about _inherently bad_ business models, like "renting"
bits, vanishing?

We need to eliminate anti-circumvention laws _as a first step_ , and then
start talking about the possibility of completely upending the copyright
system and replacing it with something that makes sense now that we have the
Internet.

~~~
TravisLS
I don't think it's a given that this model is inherently bad, obsolete, or
evil. Unlike say, horses and buggies, it's not clear that there's a superior
alternative here.

In the case of video in particular, high quality content is still very
expensive to produce. By removing the ability for movie / tv studios to make
money from content, the likely outcome is we simply don't have big budget
movies or high quality TV anymore.

Aside from all of the reasons why the businesses might want their revenue
streams to stay intact, most consumers probably want it as well.

~~~
betterunix
"Unlike say, horses and buggies, it's not clear that there's a superior
alternative here."

"Better" is subjective. I think a system is "better" when it ensures that
people can access entertainment regardless of their income, all things being
equal.

Could we monetize entertainment without sacrificing such things? Surely we
can. We can have serials, for example, such that the next installment will not
be released to anyone until enough money is raised. We can make movie theaters
an experience worth paying for, rather than focusing on the movie itself.

This same sort of argument -- "we have no alternatives!" -- was made when
automobiles rendered animal-based transportation obsolete. Pedestrians might
be struck by cars! The speeds are too dangerous! They are so much noisier than
horses! Yet in the end, the car was "better" than the horse, and now we face
riots when gasoline becomes scarce.

I think the same is true of the Internet, when it comes to copyrights,
photography, post offices, and so forth. When I was a child, photography meant
film, and you had to drop film off somewhere to have your pictures developed.
Then digital cameras came out, and for all the complaints about quality
(remember when 1 megapixel was a big deal?), the film camera business fell
apart. It was not just that we had digital cameras, it was that digital
photographs could be transmitted to anyone with an Internet connection at no
real cost -- whether you sent one photo, or a hundred photos.

Is it clear that digital is "better" than film? It all depends on your
definition of "better." Film has more pixels at lower cost. Digital still won,
and it wins even when the pictures are taken using cell phone cameras. Digital
present society with a new set of problems to deal with, like the ease with
which pornography can be made (middle school girls can be tricked into taking
pornographic photos of themselves and sending those photos to men on the
Internet, etc.), but nobody claimed it was a panacea; it just solves the
problems people actually care about better than its predecessors.

The same argument applies to entertainment. People do not really care about
quality; the continued popularity of camrips, and the continued popularity of
low-end, unoriginal movie franchises should be proof enough. People want
entertainment quickly, they want no restrictions on when and where they can
watch it, and they want to be able to go into work the day after a show aired
and laugh about it with their coworkers. My mother does not care about
copyrights or DRM laws when she rips DVDs and copies the rip to her tablet --
she just wants her favorite shows on her most portable computer when Internet
service is not available.

Copyright is obsolete because it encourages a system that makes all of the
above expensive or difficult, and because there is another system that makes
all of the above less expensive and less difficult. Cars get people from point
A to point B faster and with less expense than horses; nobody cared about the
noise, pollution, or danger. The same is true of copyrights: nobody really
worries about the risks copyright lobbyists whine about when they download a
torrent, because copyrights _don't_ deliver what people really want nearly as
well as the Internet does.

------
simonh
IMHO the problem is that the technology DRM is being conflated withe the
politics and legalities of DRM circumvention.

I have no problem with companies selling DRM protected content. They can sell
their property on whatever terms they like. It's theirs to sell, after all,
and my right and responsibility to choose whether to buy it or not.

I do have a problem with the criminalisation of DRM circumvention, which
reaches perhaps it's ultimate banality in the criminalisation of unlocking
your own phone (which requires the cracking of DRM protected firmware). That's
ridiculous and wrong.

So I understand the BBC needs DRM to meet it's contractual and legal
obligations, while being against the DRM lobby that is behind the most
egregious DRM maximalist policies. some might call it a fine line, but I think
it's there.

------
julianpye
I used to work for one of these companies in exactly such a role. Initially my
mission in standardization bodies was to look after consumer rights, but it
changed to accommodation of IPR patents in the DRM field. There is a group of
about 200 professionals in the DRM field, mostly former engineers (that have
little grasp outside their expertise) and lawyers that work for companies with
significant patent portfolios in the space. They are mostly the same crew,
having worked on technologies such as SDMI, OMA-DRM, MPEG-DRM, DVB-CPT
frameworks and others - technologies that never saw the light of day over the
course of 15 years. I always saw it as a travelling circus - people moving
from city to city and continent to continent. They work in a symbiosis with
technology people from the entertainment industries, who are also part of the
circus. What's important to note is that these people have big named companies
on their business cards, but mostly have little involvement into day-to-day
business and any products. They frankly just try to keep themselves important
and thus employed. Until you give the people in the wandering circus a new
assignment, they will always need to find new targets for their technology. I
think that is the true reason underneath many of these DRM accomodation
efforts into standardization bodies.

~~~
npsimons
Could we get the names of these people? So that they can be rightfully shunned
into quitting their quest against civilization and progress?

------
ldite
This is less to do with the "public" internet as accessed from mobile/desktop
browsers; it's about enabling the next-generation of HTML5 based interactive
TVs and STBs to interoperate with already deployed DRM and encryption
platforms, such as TDT premium in Spain, Top-up TV in the UK, and various CI+
based cable operators across Europe.

The DRM is already out there, HTML boxes are already out there, some sort of
API is going to happen (even if not through the W3C then through some
organisation like HbbTV or OIPF) and if the BBC sticks its fingers in its ears
and ignores this then it risks being stuck with an objectively worse API that
its luckless developers will end up bashing their heads against at some point
in the future.

(Incidentally, this is the thread from the last time this came up;
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3620432> )

------
Drakim
How exactly would DRM for HTML5 work? Couldn't I just fork Chronimum or
Firefox and make the browser save the video content in a file rather than
showing it?

~~~
nwh
It wouldn't. DRM relies on obfuscation, and open source software obviously
can't have that. They'll probably write a horribly insecure Silverlight plugin
that will be cracked in a matter of minutes.

ED: It looks like they'll have a "plugin" that does authentication with a
remote server, and then decodes the frames sent to it. The browser displays
them, or the DRM removal software sniffs the keys and decrypts the content
anyway.

This is how they think it will work [1], and the full proposal [2]

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

[2]: [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-fpwd.html)

~~~
alanctgardner2
> a horribly insecure Silverlight plugin

This is about the HTML5 spec, so I don't even know where you get that idea
from. They want to be able to lock down content which is embedded with the
video tag.

Personally, I don't like the idea of it tying into the operating system. I'm
willing to accept any solution that can be built into browser binaries, cross-
platform. I don't like the idea of a solution that doesn't work as well on
Linux or Macs, but if media companies think this sort of solution is
necessary, we should meet them half-way.

~~~
betterunix
"if media companies think this sort of solution is necessary, we should meet
them half-way."

Or we could not meet them half-way and remind them that they do not own the
web and that their business model is as out of date as Kodak. Why should we
accept any more attacks on the freedom and openness of the web or the greater
Internet? This companies are the ones who need to change: they need to adapt
their businesses to the realities of this century's technology.

~~~
gph
> they need to adapt their businesses to the realities of this century's
> technology.

You say this like it's immensely easy.

So say you're head of HBO's original programming dept. It can cost over 100
million dollars to produce one season of a quality show. You can only release
it on a medium that allows it to be continuously and freely distributed. How
do you make money?

Ads and Product placement is about it. You really think you'll make that 100
million back?? Especially considering that people could just edit out the ads
and redistribute your work, it's really only product placement that could make
money.

Operating at a loss is not adapting. There's a reason that all of the content
currently on netflix/hulu/etc. is already using DRM-enabled plugins. Because
you're a f*ing lunatic if you think you can make money through any other
method. Throwing out the same old "they must adapt" mantra isn't getting
either side anywhere close to a healthy solution.

~~~
betterunix
"you're a f*ing lunatic if you think you can make money through any other
method"

[citation needed]

~~~
gph
So there is another method of making money for Large Production Movie/T.V.?
Please enlighten me.

My citation is reality. Take a look around.

~~~
betterunix
We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like
HBO. It is not terribly shocking that those monopolies lead to profits, and
that companies that fail to take advantage of the copyright system would have
trouble.

You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright
there would be no profit available for people who make entertainment. I am not
really sure where you get that idea from. It is not too hard to imagine ways
to monetize a TV show in the absence of copyright -- as a simple example, a
studio could refuse to broadcast the next installment until enough people have
paid.

There, you have a way to make money on TV without copyright. Now can we stop
attacking the Internet and start embracing the reality of the 21st century?

~~~
gph
>We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like
HBO.

I don't even know how to respond to this... last I checked cable and Satellite
companies don't force HBO on you. And while cable companies held a semi-
monopoly before Satellites, that market got disrupted like 30 years ago. Let
it go.

>You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright
there would be no profit available for people who make entertainment.

Not completely. I'm claiming there wouldn't be enough profit to support the
current proliferation or high budget entertainment options. I highly doubt
shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Downtown Abbey, etc. would have gotten the
funding they needed through crowdsourcing. You typically need a large studio
with deep pockets to take on a project of that size. And most of them rely on
ad revenue during broadcast, something that would likely diminish if there was
no copyright and any TV studio was allowed to rebroadcast with different
ads/no ads. Or if people were allowed to video tape it, copy it w/ no ads, and
resell it.

Let's take a look at that simple example of yours. So who pays for the pilot
episode to be produced? The T.V. studio? And after they air it then what? Hope
enough people liked it to both pay for the production costs and a decent
profit as well as fund the next episode? And you think that's a sustainable
model??

If systems like you mention would be profitable why aren't there non-
copyrighted entertainment options raking in the money right now? The internet
has been around for awhile. There's nothing stopping people from releasing
high quality non-copyrighted content and making money from it. What's the hold
up? Government Monopolies??

~~~
betterunix
"If systems like you mention would be profitable why aren't there non-
copyrighted entertainment options raking in the money right now?"

...because they have to compete with studios that enjoy that monopoly that I
mentioned above. You seem to have been confused about what that monopoly is; I
think you typically call it _copyright_. Yes, copyright is a special,
government-granted monopoly.

------
TheZenPsycho
Let me preface this by saying that I am not in favor of DRM. However, from the
perspective of working inside a media company, I can say with certainty that
without some way of "protecting" the media stream, media companies will
continue to use flash exclusively for distributing content.

Yes, of course you clever folk can find a way around any kind of blockage.
That is not the point. It is security theater. It is the media equivalent of
asking you to take off your shoes and put them through the x-ray. It does
nothing to protect us from any kind of danger, but it is necessary to assuage
the fears of powerful people with irrational beliefs.

Because, a media company is licensing content from all kinds of different
sources. All those sources have to agree that they do not want or need any
special protection. It won't do us technologists any good to petulantly insist
that they distribute their IP with no DRM. It must be voluntary, and we should
direct our efforts to figuring out how get their willing consent. That is, the
CONTENT owners. Not the distributors, like the BBC, who have to make the
content owners happy or they simply don't get the content.

So yes, Trunnel is correct. We need this, or some other equally compelling
theater. The alternatives are that we continue to use flash, and iOS apps, or
we get no content at all, from the content owners that need the theater to be
happy.

------
phire
Personally, I'm ok with the simple DRM scheme, where javascript can pass a
decryption key into the video tag. Throw in a few extra features, like a
header at the start of the file telling the browser to only play the video
file on supported domains (to prevent websites that steal by embedding) and
disable saving the move to disk.

To the content companies, it will be a lot better than nothing. It gives the
same level of protection against casual copying as the more complex scheme,
and absolutely every browser can support it.

The more complex scheme is an absolute nightmare, essentially bringing us back
to the proprietary plugins (like flash) we have worked so hard to get away
from. And it won't even work, there is no way they can stop proficient users
from ripping the streams. This scheme will be cracked in a few weeks after it
is released.

------
danbmil99
I'm confused. Doesn't this book by Cory have DRM?

<http://www.amazon.com/Homeland-ebook/dp/B00AEC8O2K>

If he's so hot on this issue, why is he selling his creativity with DRM,
thereby hurting open standards which don't support it?

~~~
alecperkins
That's a condition of selling on the Amazon platform. Doctorow also makes his
most of his books available on his site, for free even, under a Creative
Commons license in basically every format imaginable, eg:
<http://craphound.com/down/download.php>

------
spo81rty
We need a standard for DRM for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Otherwise they will forever
use Flash or Silverlight. How can anyone argue against it? Content providers
must protect their content from being stolen. Do you want to make an app and
everyone steals it and doesn't pay for it? Probably not.

~~~
npsimons
I've got a standard for DRM: don't use it. It's easy, cheap and doesn't
require any laws or draconian software requirements on end users. I've been
using this DRM standard for decades, and yet the people who make the software
I use and the music and movies I enjoy are still rolling in dough!

~~~
gph
So you've never bought a DVD or streamed anything through Flash or Silverlight
by a major publishing studio? Never watched a music video on Youtube that it
didn't allow you to directly download?

If so, congrats on sticking to principles. But that's not really a realistic
solution for the majority of people.

------
cmircea
I would like to know how they plan to get Firefox and Chrome to support that.
As free software, adding such functionality would be moot, as it can be
trivially by-passed.

Or do they want to ignore about 80% of Internet users?

~~~
doctorfoo
I can see the future: a BBC iPlayer which only supports a few specific web
browsers. And the masses will happily "upgrade". All PC manufacturers will
ship browsers that support DRM out of the box. (The users want their software
to Just Work, after all).

~~~
estel
iPlayer already only supports a few specific web browsers that have particular
proprietary plugins installed.

------
surrealize
DRM is not necessary for the web.

Some content owners say that it is. That's a lie.

High-definition digital video gets broadcast over the air _in the clear_ all
the time.

Content owners tried to get DRM (the broadcast flag) into over-the-air
broadcasts, saying that that was the only way they would allow digital
broadcasts. The broadcast flag failed, content owners caved, and now they're
broadcasting everything in the clear.

The HTML5 encrypted media extensions are another iteration of the same thing.
If we stand up to the content owners, they'll cave again, just like they did
last time.

------
Tomino
I would like to put aside the fact about DRM and how I do not agree with what
it represents. What upsets me here, is the article it self. It is very sloppy,
no thought in it, no details. Basically worth of a tweet. I would really enjoy
if people would put more time and work into what they are publishing.

------
scaphandre
UK readers:

You might want to register your opposition with the BBC here:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/>

Takes less than 3 min.

------
undoware
I made a petition: [https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/save-the-bbc-from-
drm...](https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/save-the-bbc-from-drm-daleks)

------
mckoss
I would never you a browser that had a "Sorry, cannot perform that operation
now" dialog box (as many DVD players do to keep you from skipping pre-roll
advertising.

------
deliverd
the thing being missed here is that any DRM method _will_ be broken. why tie a
standard to something that will inevitably be broken?

------
huhsamovar
Shitty sensationalist title is sensationalist.

NB: Yes, I'm aware s/he copied it from the original article.

