Re: Cory Doctorow: W3C green-lights adding DRM to the Web's standards, says it's OK for your browser to say "I can't let you do that, Dave" [via Restricted Media Community Group]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:59 PM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> On 2013-10-08 17:29 Alastair Campbell wrote:
> > Emmanuel Revah wrote:
> > I do take your point that we should know better and protect users in this
> > step of the war on general purpose computing. However, the majority of
> > users want the content big-media provides, and don't care enough about
> the
> > DRM issue to avoid it. In this way market forces are pro-DRM and there is
> > no alternative that meets the user needs (get the content) and media
> > requirement (protect the content). Yet.
>
> Users don't care? Sure, right up untill the point that it bites them in the
> ass, as it inevitably always does sooner or later.
>

No, they don't care (when talking to general, main-steam population).

When talking to regular people it is usually me saying 'be careful about
DRMed content'. You reminded me, I've been saying that for a while:
http://alastairc.ac/2008/04/do-not-buy-drm-music/
http://alastairc.ac/2006/07/proprietary-software-and-os-choice/

But when talking about mainstream media consumption, people haven't been
bitten. iTunes, Amazon kindle, Audible, Google play, all still going strong
so people's files still work.

Another factor is the rise in popularity of streaming services, Spotify,
Rdio, Netfliex, Amazon Prime. It is obvious that you don't own these, so
people (including me this time) don't mind paying for the service (rather
than paying for the content).
When using these services you generally don't know if they use DRM, there
is so little friction.


There are at least 2 readily available alternatives:
> - Piracy for mainstream and supposedly locked up by DRM content
> - Free culture for (currently) non-mainstream content
>

Yes, but that's a red herring in this discussion. The first is illegal, the
second is already trying different approaches and not requiring DRM. It
doesn't stop people wanting the mainstream content or the producers
demanding DRM.

Do you really believe that regular people do not want mainstream movies, or
that the producers will stop demanding DRM?

I agree things are in the process of changing (and I hope they continue
to), but it's going to be a slow process. In that context, the rest of your
points are irrelevant in the short to medium term.

I think the music industry experience has shown (and Kevin space trumpeted
[1]) that providing the content people want on multiple platforms for a
reasonable price with minimal friction is the best way to defeat piracy.

How do we get from here (where the content is DRMed in Flash/Silverlight)
to there (not DRMed)?

In the next 2-5 years DRM is going to be a factor. Hollywood can afford to
use expensive user-hostile solutions until something better comes along or
they close up shop. The question is should an aspect of the DRM be under
the auspices of the W3C?

I just came across this, which is a good answer to that:
http://longtermlaziness.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/the-w3c-is-a-restaurant/

Milan Zamazal wrote:

>     AC> I don't see any form of DRM progressing past video in the W3C,
>
> I guess music streaming services might come next soon.
>

I don't see why, they seem to be doing fine without a spec.

-Alastair

1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ukYf_xvgc (from 2 minutes on)