Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
An anonymous coward writes:
"In March, 2013 Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, proposed adopting DRM into the HTML standard, under the name Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Writing in October 2013, he said that "none of us as users like certain forms of content protection such as DRM at all," but cites the argument that "if content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C" as a reason for considering the inclusion of DRM in HTML.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has objected, saying in May of last year that the plan 'defines a new "black box" for the entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and end-user'. Later, they pointed out that if DRM is OK for video content, that same principle would open the door to font, web applications, and other data being locked away from users.
public-restrictedmedia, the mailing list where the issue is being debated, has seen discussion about forking HTML and establishing a new standard outside of the W3C."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Monday February 17 2014, @10:58PM
It's all fine to whine about how DRM and copyrights etc. are evil and nasty, but the fact is that they're something that we have to live with. Whether you're a creator who actually likes to think that their work is protected from being reused and resold by other people, or you're someone who's just fed up with ham-handed DRM implementations, you'll have to agree that what we have now is a big ugly mess.
Copy protection didn't work when I was using my Commodore 64, and it sure as hell doesn't work now.
And the people selling bootleg copies of Beatles records in the 70s had about the same moral sense as the people selling bootlegged copies of Photoshop. Both are wrong on a pretty fundamental level.
(Unless of course you're actually a real living, breathing Anarchist) (Which is not the same as Libertarian.)
If the corporations who make their living off of music, software, or media want us to respect their claims of ownership they need to do two things:
Price their products at a level that people feel is reasonable. (Is $40 for a downloadable audiobook "reasonable?")
Figure out how to do DRM in a way that's transparent, works for all platforms, and which never, ever gets in my way.
Maybe, just maybe, the best way to do that is within the HTML standard?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dmc on Monday February 17 2014, @11:08PM
"
Figure out how to do DRM in a way that's transparent, works for all platforms, and which never, ever gets in my way.
Maybe, just maybe, the best way to do that is within the HTML standard?
"
For those of us that believe in the value of educational and artistic fair use, having to get permission from the keyholders first seems like an awefully big 'getting in the way'. As soon as someone with a politically dissenting view has to ask permission to sample and quote a work to criticize it, it opens them up to persecution by monied interests that would rather have their voice excluded from the public debate. And that is not to mention what free-speech hating regimes such as China and Russia would do with the technology.
(Score: 1) by dmc on Monday February 17 2014, @11:58PM
"And that is not to mention what free-speech hating regimes such as China and Russia would do with the technology."
And I'll be the first to remind myself that the U.S.A. is hardly without sin when it comes to interfering with people's 'inalienable' right to free speech. And if it makes you feel any better s/China and Russia/a future U.S. that believes reporting on the history of the Snowden revelations is a continuing threat to national security/
(Score: 2, Insightful) by clone141166 on Monday February 17 2014, @11:10PM
Maybe, but what if instead it ends up like most past DRM implementation attempts, a "big ugly mess". Except this time it will be a big, ugly mess that is forever embedded into, and drags down, the entire HTML standard at the same time.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Monday February 17 2014, @11:13PM
problem of course is that so far noone has ever designed or implemented DRM that hits any of your points. DVD came close - but even then they wont work out of region. and by it's very idea at some point either the delivery tool or the codec will be obsolete.
Industry certainly isnt going to release a drm standard as open source code either - and that would then become a way to illegetimatize Firefox who isnt going to adopt a unseen binary blob.
(Score: 1) by CaptainK on Monday February 17 2014, @11:21PM
you had me at c64.
mod parent up!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EventH0rizon on Monday February 17 2014, @11:28PM
Well put.
I want my creative output free when I want it be free, and I want some remuneration when I think it's deserving.
The limiting factor as I see it is the more or less fixed cost of the major physical assets in your life, and chief among those are rent and/or mortgage.
If *those* costs started shrinking I'd be more sanguine about making everything free.
Jaron Lanier's You are not a Gadget [slate.com] has really got me thinking more and more about my previously unconditional and reflexive support for making all content free all the time. Some of what he says annoys the hell out of me, but I find other parts very challenging.
My 2c.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by clone141166 on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:16AM
I think you might be forking the issue a bit, the question this article raises isn't really "should content be free or not?", but rather "should paid content be restricted by DRM?". I have no problem personally with content creators charging for their work (although I think the best work is done by people who truly believe in what they are doing, which tends to favour open, community-based projects rather than corporate-based works).
But I think the biggest barrier to making a profit from paid content is still the lack of competitive services to rival what piracy-based options provide. I know it sounds odd to say, but content creators should view "piracy" as a competitor/market force. How do you compete with a service that provides the same product for free? The same way you would compete with a corporate competitor who is able to drastically undercut your prices; provide a better service where you can and lower your prices as much as possible. I cite Steam as a working example of this. While game piracy still exists, Steam's lower prices and integrated benefits (friends list, chat, screenshots, community hubs, etc.) make it more beneficial to just pay for the game on Steam than muck around trying to pirate it.
I think a lot of big corporations have had so much power for so long that they have forgotten what real competition even is. As for smaller content creators, yes it is tough to earn a living these days. But keep in mind that technological advances have made it much, much easier for people to become content creators - if there are more of them per % of the population doesn't mean ALL of them are still entitled to be profitable. Ultimately supply and demand drives what people consider to be a "fair price" for content. Even if you eliminated all piracy tomorrow, small time creators might STILL not see any significant increase in profits.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pbnjoe on Monday February 17 2014, @11:36PM
But DRM is useless and unnecessary, and there are countless examples of this. Though literally every videogame in existence (except for Diablo III, but the game is botched from how they managed it) is pirate-able (as the DRM is stripped very rapidly from the product), Steam is massive, and devs, publishers, as well as other distribution systems are doing fine. Along with games, music, movies, and every other digital form of entertainment you can think of can be pirated (and are), and yet no industry has died, much as groups like the RIAA, MPAA, etc want you to think is going to happen.
All DRM has done is be a two minute annoyance for bootleggers and crackers (and none for pirates), and affect legitimate customers negatively, sometimes to the point of completely preventing access to the media, even though no wrongdoing has occurred.
As for the latter bits of your post, yes, pricing needs to be not so ridiculous, but no, just keep DRM out. It's only put in for the most part by corporations who want to treat everyone like dirty criminals who owe them the shirt off their backs or the poor CEO will starve, and it's terribly offensive. For this lone creator you mentioned, they'll just have to understand that's not really viable (I can explain better later if needed). Treat your customers right, and they'll treat you right back (just check out GOG, for example).
Anyway, this has been hashed out repeatedly in many discussions.
(Score: 1) by pbnjoe on Monday February 17 2014, @11:39PM
My apologies if the diction of the third paragraph is a bit rough, but like I said, I get offended about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by everdred on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:45AM
I don't think even they think it's about piracy. It's about locking as many consumers as possible into their platform and extracting a stream of future sales from them, not to mention extracting licensing fees from hardware manufacturers.
We don't take no shit from a machine.
(Score: 1) by pbnjoe on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:55AM
True. I don't believe the two trains of thought are mutually exclusive, however. Dealing with current "lost" sales (aka "how can we get more money", not that they're losing it) with their piracy argument (which they don't even believe, I think, the argument's just used as leverage) and lock-in for the future money-taking :)
(Score: 1) by greenfruitsalad on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:49AM
my ONLY concern with a DRM that works is that i will lose access to MY media when the company enforcing/checking licenses goes bust. e.g.: if adobe shut down, half of world's ebooks would become unreadable. that is something that is unacceptable to me. once i paid for something, i shouldn't have to fear that.
(Score: 1) by everdred on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:02PM
That's reasonable. Your options are to not buy DRMed content, or buy it and then break said DRM.
Obviously, there are problems with both options.
We don't take no shit from a machine.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hash14 on Monday February 17 2014, @11:49PM
What about respecting term limits? Or is the Mickey Mouse Protection Act due to come up again soon?
Sorry, when copyrights start respecting people, people will start respecting copyrights. There's no reason why the Beatles should still be hampered by copyright law.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by everdred on Monday February 17 2014, @11:57PM
> Sorry, when copyrights start respecting people, people will start respecting copyrights.
Yep. Setting aside hash14's point about the ever-increasing term of copyright, does anyone think that when your DRMed content goes into the public domain that the DRM is just going to magically disappear so that you (or maybe your great-grandchildren) can use it as you wish?
We don't take no shit from a machine.
(Score: 1) by dry on Tuesday February 18 2014, @01:34AM
What makes you think that anything is going to go into the public domain? They've already done the opposite and rolled out longer limits and public domain stuff has re-entered copyright.
These people really believe that IP is property and theirs forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitari
(Score: 1) by everdred on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:49AM
I would direct you to the qualifier with which I opened my comment:
> Setting aside hash14's point about the ever-increasing term of copyright...
The point I was making was that even though things may in theory enter the public domain in the future, DRM ensures that a whole lot of stuff people buy won't, even if it legally does.
We don't take no shit from a machine.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Monday February 17 2014, @11:51PM
That's all fine and dandy.
Or, at least, it would be if it weren't for the rampant and flagrant theft of intellectual property going on today -- very real theft on an absolutely unimaginable scale.
No, I don't mean torrents or the latest reincarnation of Napster.
I mean the wholesale raping and pillaging of the public domain.
The real pirates aren't the pimply-faced kids and the cheapskates passing around a shaky cellphone video of the latest blockbuster or TV episodes of some fake reality show; no, it's the copyright cartels.
When they start to show some respect for intellectual property rights, I might start to think about showing them some in turn. Give us back Steamboat Willie, Ravel's Bolero, The Matrix, and everything else created before 2010, and we'll talk.
Until then, copyright as it actually exists today is an unconscionable restriction on the freedom of expression.
Fuck that noise.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:42PM
I'm with you except:
When they start to show some respect for intellectual property rights, I might start to think about showing them some in turn. Give us back... everything else created before 2010, and we'll talk.
Four years is WAY too short a term, and it's never been that short. I'm publishing The Paxil Diaries as a book, and the first chapter was published on the net in 2003. If copyright were 5 years, Random House could just print the damned thing, make a shitload of money, and I would get nothing.
I have no problem with you reading my book for free (see my sig) but I would have a BIG problem with you making money on MY work without me getting any compensation whatever.
Isaac Asimov didn't earn a dime on Foundation for ten years; the publisher had no marketing money. I'm having the same problem with Nobots, I get raves and the only two complaints are the cover art (one guy) and some of the "big words" (two women; "Are those real words? Can I look them up in the dictionary?"). I don't expect to get rich off of it, but I expect nobody else to, either.
Ten years is a REALLY short time, son, unless you're only 20. A twenty year copyright term (as it was before 1900) would work, that would put everything before 1994 in the public domain. and 1994 was like yesterday.
I'd also like to add that copyright should only apply to works "affixed in a permanent medium" meaning e-versions of everything would be free, counted as advertisement for the physical object that holds the content.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday February 18 2014, @06:37PM
Sorry -- that was a typo.
I meant, 2000, with my choice of The Matrix (1999) meant as the bounding example. Fourteen years, as I recall, was good enough for the First Congress, and I daresay it's more than good enough in today's faster-than-ever Internet age.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:54PM
Yes, fourteen isn't bad, especially if you could renew for another 14 like it was back then. I'd also have it roll back to needing copyright registration and requiring a copyright notice for the work.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:58PM
2010?! You want copyright to last 4 years? At least give them 10, dude.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpallsHurgenson on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:05AM
DRM needs a third feature: an escape clause.
Because we are increasingly running against DRM-protected media that has become inaccessible because the authorization server is not accessible. There needs to be a method for users to access their content after the provider choose to no longer support it. Perhaps an "all-access" key or software to remove the DRM is held in escrow so long as there is continued support for the media/DRM; when the authorization servers go down, the key or software is released to the public. This should be a legal obligation put onto publishers so they can't force users to repurchase content they have already purchased.
That there is no such obligation on publishers /and/ users can be prosecuted for "cracking" their own property should they need to access the data after the publisher stop support, is just another example of how unfair and balanced against the consumer the market really is.
(Score: 1) by jcd on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:31AM
This is a great idea. I hesitate a long time before buying anything that has DRM attached to it. I know, I've sold out even considering it, but let's be honest - sometimes, I need to read/watch/listen to something that doesn't come another way. And yeah, they've won. But as others have said above, DRM is not going anywhere. We need to find intelligent, transparent ways to manage it now. It's like trying to uninvent castle walls. They amount to an inconvenience for people with the tools and know-how (e.g., rival kings with catapults and trebuchets), and they tend to trap those that supposedly benefit from the defense in with disease and famine, but they aren't going to stop building walls because the peasants keep dying.
"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:31PM
sometimes, I need to read/watch/listen to something that doesn't come another way.
You NEED to? What, pray tell, do you NEED to read/watch/listen to? The only useful info behind paywalls is scientific journals, and they're hardcopy, not DRMed.
You don't NEED to watch Gravity, you know. It is not a necessity! And god damn it, I don't use it, ever, at all (unless it's been cracked like DVDs; cracked DRM is no DRM at all). Hell, back in the early 0s I bought a CD and found it had DRM (wouldn't play in the computer) and returned it. Yeah, I could have cracked it or simply sampled it (music DRM is especially brain-dead) but I just returned it for a refund and told them the reason. "This CD is defective; it was designed not to work in my computer. It is not a Redbook CD." I got my money back.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by jcd on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:48AM
You NEED to? What, pray tell, do you NEED to read/watch/listen to?
I'm not talking about petty entertainment. That I can take or leave on my own terms. But I'm a teacher. Sometimes I have to use certain media to make a point. I can't talk about the Vietnam protest movement and the relevant music legally without acquiring it through certain channels. Some movies and videos - in particular things like the History Channel, back when it used to actually have History - come from DRM only sources. They're good at that with some things.
As far as reading is concerned, relevant research for my MA and for classroom activities sometimes only comes from DRM sources.
And choosing to watch these things on youtube or finding ways to circumnavigate/crack the DRM doesn't help solve the problems that DRM poses. It's the principle of the thing that's the problem. All that does is up the chance that I'll end up in some sort of legal trouble.
"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:44PM
I can't talk about the Vietnam protest movement and the relevant music legally without acquiring it through certain channels.
Nonsense, iTunes MP3s have no DRM so you can buy copies unencumbered. The question isn't "is it free?" it's "is it encumbered by DRM?" As to photos and videos, two seconds found this. [google.com] plenty of unencumbered photos and most likely videos as well.
As far as reading is concerned, relevant research for my MA and for classroom activities sometimes only comes from DRM sources.
They stopped printing textbooks and research papers on paper? Paper has no DRM.
It's the principle of the thing that's the problem.
Agreed completely. You certainly woudn't want to use illegal materials in class.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]
(Score: 1) by jcd on Wednesday February 19 2014, @12:47PM
That's fair. I'm not looking for free. But I just don't trust Apple's "no really, there's no DRM and you won't be punished" promises. I suppose that's a separate issue. And as far as papers go, unless you want access to only the most basic (and mostly out of date) stuff, forget about print. Especially if you live nowhere near a college campus like I do.
"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mmarujo on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:30AM
I almost, almost, wish this could happen, but it never will.
For some, DRM will always be immoral, and take no part of it, so this new standard will alienate them.
For the DRM proposer it will never be enough. Honestly it feels like dealing with a spoyled 4 year old, "I WANA ICE CREAM!", so this as a standard will not be enough for them.
Who remains? The majority of people, who will still not be able to see the latest blockbuster, because they are not in the right country/timezone.
So, for my part I believe the only course to adopt will be No DRM. Yes, that may mean we will have to put up with flash or whatever, but still... I don't feel like indulging a spoiled 4 year old.
(Score: 1) by RedGreen on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:47AM
"It's all fine to whine about how DRM and copyrights etc. are evil and nasty, but the fact is that they're something that we have to live with. Whether you're a creator who actually likes to think that their work is protected from being reused and resold by other people, or you're someone who's just fed up with ham-handed DRM implementations, you'll have to agree that what we have now is a big ugly mess."
It may be a mess but no one has to agree to anything involving DRM there are already laws on the books to deal with copyright infringement that can be used in such a circumstance.
"If the corporations who make their living off of music, software, or media want us to respect their claims of ownership they need to do two things:"
No way in hell anyone should respect their claim of ownership they have none. Copyright is a supposedly limited grant of exclusivity, they have the right to use that work for a limited period of time then it again supposedly reverts to the public who granted them the chance to make money from that exclusive access. That is not the way it works now though the content Mafia have successfully stolen that public domain. All the works that should be reverting back to the public who have granted them that copyright are not now doing so due to the never ending retroactive extension of said copyrights, as it stands now not another work under it will enter the public domain ever again..
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 18 2014, @03:20PM
It's all fine to whine about how DRM and copyrights etc. are evil and nasty, but the fact is that they're something that we have to live with.
No, we don't. The very concept is stupid, and there is nothing I absolutely need that is protected by DRM. I'd subscribe to NetFlix were it not for Silverfish DRM. Instead, I'll just torrent. Fuck 'em. If you want me to pay for your shit, sell me what I want and don't add any stinky garbage.
Whether you're a creator who actually likes to think that their work is protected from being reused and resold by other people, or you're someone who's just fed up with ham-handed DRM implementations, you'll have to agree that what we have now is a big ugly mess.
I'm a content creator (BUY MY BOOK!)who knows good and well that DRM doesn't protect diddly squat and I agre that it's a big ugly mess. A big ugly mess I refuse to have anything to do with.
And the people selling bootleg copies of Beatles records in the 70s had about the same moral sense as the people selling bootlegged copies of Photoshop. Both are wrong on a pretty fundamental level.
I agree about bootleg copies being sold. That's just wrong. But even though there was a big stink from the labels about bootleg sales back then, I never saw a single bootleg copy of anything for sale. OTOH cassettes of albums were traded back and forth like P2P dies now, and what's more, it was specifically legalized by the Home Recording Act of 1976 (or was it 1978?).
And like P2P, it led to sales. Like today, back in the late sixties when I was a teenager the radio played garbage. You didn't hear Zeppelin or Hendrix or Sabbath on the radio, although you might hear "Magic Bus" or "You Really Got Me" once a month mixed in with the Archies and similar commercial dreck. My friends heard of Zeppelin from me; I was in a record store the day their first album came out and the store was playing it. I wouldn't have heard of Hendrix or Iron Butterfly without our sneakernet P2P file sharing. And there were no complaints, it was legal.
The KSHE came around in 1967 and changed St Louis radio forever.
If the corporations who make their living off of music, software, or media want us to respect their claims of ownership they need to do two things:
Price their products at a level that people feel is reasonable. (Is $40 for a downloadable audiobook "reasonable?")
Figure out how to do DRM in a way that's transparent, works for all platforms, and which never, ever gets in my way.
Impossible. If you can't copy it you can't back it up. I have LPs that are 45 years old, will your DRMed content still be available in 2050? But your first two statements are on the money: if someone wants your product and can afford your product and your product is actually available, they'll buy it. Piss them off and they'll download it from TPB.
Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]