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]

Emmanuel Revah wrote:

> Back to the DRM for images, if the W3C accepts DRM for videos it will set
> a precedence and there would be no logical reason to refuse DRM for
> anything else. Those interested in this would have to work on a spec and
> get it approved and so on, just like with EME.
>

The scope of the HTML working group includes:
"additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases
such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for:
- facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions)
- supporting playback of protected content"

That is pretty specific, and I believe a change in that scope would have to
be approved by the AC. Either by voting with one vote per member, or by any
member trying to block it, and then going to a vote, and then to the
director. I don't know the ins and outs yet but that seems to be the
process.
It isn't /just/ a case of someone wanting to work on it.


Interestingly, there's a script that allows users to download content from
> the public service station (BBC), I used to use it because I couldn't use
> their in-browser player (it lagged on my old computer). I sometimes
> re-encoded the videos for use on other older devices. I also erased the
> files once I had watched them. Even full length movies.
>
> This is what the business model should be.
>
> If Netflix or other was available in this way I would probably be a
> subscriber.


Netflix doesn't provide downloadable files, they are streaming only. This
is a different business model, and one that avoids a lot of the pain that
DRM of files creates. Of course, it does mean the service is limited to
situations where you can stream, but that makes EME is a good fit for this
particular model. Embedding streams into a webpage is a common use-case.

Playing back 'protected content' you have saved locally through a non-local
webpage is unusual, I would have thought?
In that case you'd want a media player, rather than browser?


I would have the assurance that I will always be able to play the file on
> my system, even on my 10 year old Palm. With DRM, it's just never going to
> happen for me, I know people like me are too few to have any commercial
> effect.


Me neither, I don't rely on "buying" DRM content. Streaming is OK, I know
I'm renting it. But you're right, most people don't care.


I tend to think that if/when EME is the norm, they will not change for a
> trust based business, at least not in the next decade. For one, they'd have
> to justify all the money put in to CDMs (Browser, OS, Hardware). This is a
> "time will tell" thing so... we'll see.
>

I agree, they are unlikely to change to a trust-based business, they need
to be shown that another (business) model works for products of their
scale/type.

However, I think time is already telling, EME-like code is in Chrome, IE,
Chromecast. (I based that assumption on it not having Flash/Silverlight.)
There must be one or more CDMs for Netflix and Hulu to be on the
Chromecast.

Small devices which don't have the capacity for Flash/Silverlight but do
have h.264 decoding need something like EME, so it's already happened.


At the same time, there are others, as mentioned by cobaco; Louis CK (huge
> fan, I generally put on weight when I watch his shows), and a few others
> (known through big media as well as alternative media, in video and audio
> formats) are proving that non-DRM based distribution can work.
>

Yes, but the risk Louis CK faced was not in the same league as the TV/Movie
Studios. He (I assume) paid for the filming and releasing it, but he was
doing the shows in front of a crowd, so probably wouldn't have been too
badly out of pocket if he made nothing. Compared to films, or a TV series
($100 million for House of Cards), it isn't in the same league of risk.

I'm not saying I would make the same choice (I believe that if the studios
made it easy to pay for movies DRM free, they would still have a business),
but I can see why they don't want to risk it, and it will take a lot to
persuade them.

The timing of these things makes DRM on the web (regardless of the W3C)
inevitable:
1. Flash / Silverlight dying out, and not working on mobile / small devices.
2. New business models not proven to work for big budget films (to their
satisfaction at least).

If 1 happened later, or 2 happened sooner, we wouldn't be discussing this.

If EME is under the umbrella of the W3C, open-source browsers have a better
chance of being able to implement it, at least on platforms that can
include CDMs.

The W3C can't prevent people doing DRM via HTML5, so we are discussing the
balance of the W3C being seen as completely open vs making the best of the
situation.


Perhaps the real key to open web standards that sticks to healthy
> principles with content publishers that accept to publish without requiring
> control would be for users to have a better understanding of the Internet
> in general.
>

If more people understood the nature of the Internet it would change
things, but I haven't seen any inclination for people wanting to do that.
Most people just want to get things done, including watch movies. That's
why I'm pessimistic that alternatives would be accepted soon.

-Alastair