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 Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

It's also worth remembering that you do not just need people who are
interested in using some feature and interested in working on a spec. You
also need User Agent implementors who are interested in implementing the
feature, otherwise it is going nowhere. I see no interest at all from UA
implementors in DRM outside of the HTMLMediaElement.


>
>
> 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
>