
DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/drm-non-aggression-table-w3c
======
irq-1
It wasn't so many years ago that the solution would have been a proprietary
patent with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing and
payment. Free and Open Source made the payment impossible, so companies had to
change. The proprietary control through patents was tempered by standard
bodies excluding such contributions (like W3C [0]), or patent disclaimers
(like Microsofts Community Promise [1]), or patent pooling (like MPEG LA). So
if we want to eliminate DRM, without hoping for another miracle from Apple, we
should use the large market share of open source software.

Maybe that means changing licenses (like a BSD 4-clause 'no DRM' license).

Maybe it means making client/server software that just doesn't work with DRM,
closing down web based DRM, and forcing Hulu etc... to each implement their
own clients on every platform (as it was before EME). Maybe get a Netflix
competitor to use AGPL3 server and clients, that won't work with distributors
that demand DRM.

[0] [https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-
Li...](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing)

[1] [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/openspecifications/dn750984](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/openspecifications/dn750984)

~~~
echelon
A viral no-DRM clause in a variety of open source licenses sounds like a great
idea! How could we go about promulgating such a thing?

~~~
zanny
Start using GPLv3 and AGPLv3 like you were supposed to for the better part of
the last decade, and stop listening to the divisive arguments from pragmatists
who don't care about the ethical consequences of permissive licensing when it
comes to these kinds of things.

Even if you want to get post-copyright (I certainly do) we don't improve the
situation fueling the copyright lobby with technological force multipliers
through our own hard work. Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep
users free of this kind of nonsense.

~~~
Sanddancer
How will GPLv3 prevent smartphone, smarttv, etc apps from using DRM? About all
GPLv3 and AGPLv3 would do is give a slightly smaller corpus of software to use
in implementing. How much software did Apple open up when GCC went GPLv3?

~~~
zanny
Apple has never included the GPLv3 version of GCC on OSX themselves. For years
they were shipping the outdated last GPLv2 release, and then they put all
their effort into LLVM to replace GCC entirely because they refused to give up
their DRM and Tivoization.

GPLv3 has this clause:

Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to
escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible
with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore,
the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor
subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden.

And has a definition corollary:

Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or
authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the
work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use,
such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the
work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption
codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a
code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the
user already has it.

The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the
license and be liable for copyright infringement.

On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere,
because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.

~~~
Sanddancer
That's my point. The GPLv3 did less than nothing in encouraging reasonable
sharing, it made companies wall things off more. When you're even a moderate
sized company, there comes a point where it's easier to just write your own
than to deal with the restrictions software licenses bring. It's happened with
a ton of commercial code, and it happens with Free code as well.

~~~
belorn
Don't tell Blizzard that. They use a tons of free libraries in their flag ship
products, including LGPLv3 in Starcraft 2. Im sure they would just love to
delay the release date swith a year or two in order to avoid FOSS licenses and
rewrite their own XML parser, fonts, or HTML/CSS code parsers.

That is, unless they can do cost-benefit. Some markets is just to competitive
that you can't waste developer time in order to be afraid of licenses. The
game market is very saturated, but there might be places where you can afford
to entertain peoples fear.

------
shmerl
DRM is a disease. They might mitigate symptoms (corrupted anti-circumvention
laws), but this sickness must be uprooted at its source to be really fixed.
W3C made a great disservice for the Web by accepting DRM in the standard
legitimizing it in the process.

~~~
njharman
DRM is a symptom. Perpetual copyright is the diseas.

~~~
tremon
The disease is using technical measures to enforce laws.

~~~
njharman
yeah, I don't know. For an imagined law "government can't violate privacy" I'd
feel much better with strong encryption (a technical measure) then trusting
government to prosecute and jail its employees when they violate law.

------
DanielDent
One pragmatic approach would be to continue to support existing DRM -- but
only for the largest most established existing players like Netflix.

This would make DRM a problem for the content providers, because Netflix would
then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with DRM. That's not
good for their ability to have any leverage while negotiating.

A similar situation played out with iTunes, and we've got DRM-free music
available for sale now.

~~~
tinalumfoil
> Netflix would then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with
> DRM

To rephrase Archer, "Do you want the DOJ to be involved in the creation of
(global) web standards through antitrust lawsuits? Because that's how you get
the DOJ involved in the creation of web standards through antitrust lawsuits."

~~~
DanielDent
I'm not sure there would be market harm from this outcome, which would be
required for the DoJ to intervene.

Content creators would remain free to license their content using their own
technologies.

Apple has successfully shut down people that created implementations
compatible with Apple's DRM. To be clear, these people were _not_ breaking
Apple's DRM. They were "protecting content" using DRM that was iTunes/iPod
compatible, and Apple shut that down.

------
JoshTriplett
This seems like a good idea in principle. However, the people most likely to
bring a DMCA suit are not participating members of the W3C and thus not
subject to this pact. The major media production houses can sit back, let
others build EME for them, use it, and wield the DMCA over that use.

~~~
m0dest
Widevine (Google) and PlayReady (Microsoft) are the top EME DRM providers.
Google and Microsoft are both on the EME working group.

The critical question is whether rightsholders can use the DMCA (or local
equivalent) to sue someone for circumventing DRM technology that isn't their
own.

If not, if the only party capable of enforcing anticircumvention is the DRM
vendor itself, then this could be very effective.

------
stegosaurus
As a sort of external observer who doesn't really 'do' big media, I'm left
wondering why content providers even bother with DRM at all.

Any insiders about to provide some sort of perspective?

All of the content is all over torrent sites. The general public are 'non-
savvy', or unwilling to take the risk, and seem to continue paying to
netflix'n'chill.

So I don't really understand why this is even a thing. It feels like anyone
savvy enough to save a HTML5 video and copy it to a USB drive would be savvy
enough to open a torrent site. What gives?

~~~
Flimm
DRM isn't effective at stopping the data from getting out into torrents, but
it is effective at other things, one of which is mentioned by the article: it
makes researching copying and bypassing copy restrictions illegal. There are
few other I explained in my answer here:
[http://security.stackexchange.com/a/25175/15712](http://security.stackexchange.com/a/25175/15712)

------
tptacek
As long as major content providers want it, there is going to be DRM one way
or the other. It is not in fact within W3C's power to prevent that.

The only influence W3C has on DRM is the form it takes: is it implemented
through (somewhat) standardized means, using the building blocks of web
technology provided by browser vendors, or is it implemented through black-box
plugins that we know, after 15+ years of experience, end-users _will_ install.

I have never really understand the role W3C is supposed to play as a pressure
point for DRM.

~~~
azakai
> As long as major content providers want it, there is going to be DRM one way
> or the other.

It's not so simple. Content providers want to distribute on the web. Yes, they
have the ability to just pull out and avoid that space entirely, but that's
not good for them. The web needs their content, but they also need the web.

In other words, the W3C saying no to DRM would apply pressure in the right
direction.

That suggests positions can be shifted. And we have seen them shift before,
with music downloads, which used to be DRM'ed, but no longer are.

~~~
zanny
Except the web doesn't really need their content. The web exists and will
continue to flourish regardless of the availability of commercial hollywood
films and television on it. It got this far without ruining open standards,
and the MAFIAA lobby forced DRM bullshit upon it because they fear for their
long term viability.

That is a sign they were _losing_ the battle, and they absolutely were with
the rise of youtube, facebook video, twitch, etc - alternative video sources
were / are starting to get professional, with many major youtube channels
having production crew and proper film / showmaking.

The web would have been absolutely fine without them, but they knew they would
not survive without the web long term, _especially_ internationally.

------
majormajor
Overall, this whole argument seems like the web being well behind the curve
and debating about approaches to take to yesterday's problem (or perceived
problem, I've yet to see real harm done by DRM on Netflix) when meanwhile
things are largely passing them by. Consumption is moving to smart TVs, Rokus,
iPads, etc.

So if you want a threat to the "open web" the appification of the world is
where you'll find it. I'm not sure it'll be stopped either way (or even that
this trend is so terrible), but religious objections to DRM - to push things
that way even faster - aren't going to do anything to slow that train down.

------
duncan_bayne
Some past discussion on this topic:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7055016)

