It has an effect because the W3C has authority and influence, even though it doesn't have power, and by supporting DRM it communicates that it likes non-open technology. It undermines very many people who have advocated for open technology; if even the W3C says it's not important, then why would anyone listen to me?
(I realize that the W3C may not be saying exactly that, but those subtleties are lost in public communication.)
As an extreme example (because it comes to mind), Martin Luther King had no real power; he held no office. But he did have influence and authority. If he said that civil rights weren't important after all, then it would undermine many people who sacrificed a lot to advocate for that cause. If MLK said civil rights weren't important, why would anyone believe a protestor who said otherwise?
No, it doesn't. In fact, for years the browser vendors told them to piss off and went with the whatwg :)
"As an extreme example (because it comes to mind), Martin Luther King had no real power; "
Martin Luther King had a church that followed him, and they were the people who started protesting with him. The W3C doesn't really have a church. Or at least, not one that is useful. If they protested it would be drowned out quite the same as 35 people marching somewhere in Alabama would be today. Additionally, MLK had people who believed in his cause. A very large number of people, who were enough to cause disruption. He just was able to motivate them.
That seems ... unlikely with the W3C.
So while you are right that if they had such power and influence, maybe they could attract people to the cause. But the likelihood of success is low, and they definitely aren't in the same situation as MLK.
Yes, Google and Microsoft - the browser vendors that created EME - would have done so anyhow, with or without the W3C. But that is no excuse for the W3C. If it would happen anyhow and so "doesn't matter", then why support it? Rejecting it would at minimum have had a strong symbolic meaning.
> Do we worry that having put movies on the web, then content providers will want to switch also to use it for other media such as music and books? For music, I don’t think so, because we have seen industry move consciously from a DRM-based model to an unencrypted model, where often the buyer’s email address may be put in a watermark, but there is no DRM.
And the same might have happened for movies, if we stopped Google, Microsoft, and Netflix from creating and promoting EME. The music industry didn't just "happen" to move away from DRM, it was a necessary response.
> The web has to be universal
EME has not and will not solve this. I cannot use a minority browser to view EME content, not unless the browser has an arrangement with the DRM vendor. That completely destroys universality.
You're right. Also this is terrible for both the creators and the consumers since it promotes anticompetitive behavior by giant distributors. Here is a great interview with Doctorow on why DRM is a terrible idea, he uses publishing as an example but the idea applies to other creative branches - https://youtu.be/ZXu-_LBrf24?t=1800
Like making paddles for corporal punishment of children. There are many manufacturers, we can't stop it, at least our standardized paddles don't have spikes. We wanted to add a clause that forbids lasting damage to be inflicted with our paddles, but the parents-for-paddling organization objected, we're sad it didn't make it in, but it's still in everyone's best interest!
One particular stood out. That EME would protect user's privacy somehow. But that sandboxing, as his primary illustration of HOW that might occur, is NOT part of the standard.
So, the standard does not protect the user directly. His assumption is that browser manufacturers will do so via robust sandboxing against the EME blob. (and for now, they probably will)
His core argument rotates on a few points, essentially boiling down to "its better for the user to have EME than not", so having this central argument for this make sense is important.
And it doesn't make sense. EME doesn't directly protect the user's privacy. It perhaps allows, via unspecified methods, a browser to do things. Maybe.
Given these rationalizations, I wonder what his REAL reason for pushing EME? Fear of being left out of the conversation and wanting to be "friendly" to content interests is my top suggestion.
We will see where this goes, but I don't envy the massive hit to his reputation he's taking here.
You might argue that entertainment is not the same as health; but don't forget that one big part of DRM is in education, which is a big deal. If we make EME easy to use all Copyright abusers can and will - if history repeats - use it. Things like Sci-Hub exist for this very reason. Arguing in favor of denying education to an important fraction of the poorer world for the economic gain of few US companies is something that I think is worth fighting against.
We are at a point where even Copyright abusers should start working online or become irrelevant so many are migrating; let's not give them the tools to keep abusing their users.
I doubt that very much, as he is English...
Would the result be no DRM on "premium" video? I doubt it. The de fact approach before EME existed was to use plugins on desktop and a native app on mobile. If there was no EME, that's what we would still have (and indeed the transition is not over).
There are certainly problems with DRM. But the W3C's primary mission is to bring the web to its fullest potential. If fighting DRM meant ceding ground from the open web platform to plugins and native apps, then that doesn't seem like a good way to benefit the web.
Giving in to DRM seems to mean ceding ground to a binary-blob plugin, increasingly implemented such that it can't be removed from the browser. The difference that I see is that we're normalizing something that shouldn't be normalized, and killing off the open web in favor of corporate interests. It's a reasonable, practical concession, and simultaneously a step toward the death of what makes the web useful for things beyond entertainment.
Unfortunately music is backsliding because more of the market is moving to DRM-ful streaming services where you rent your music, instead of DRM-less music that you own free and clear.
As I understand it most money now comes from licensing deals, like commercials, as opposed to record sales.
I'm no fan of drm, but there is an interesting question about how people get paid for their work. DRM sucks for users... what do content producers do to protect their revenue stream?
This at least standardizes the process. Perhaps that's a bit like standardizing the roads we drive on: it gets people around and enables commerce, but the long term trade-off might be too much.
I believe that is the case, anyway.
An open standard is one that anyone can implement. EME is not open in that way - it just standardizes a small part, the interface. The DRM itself remains completely nonstandard, and Google, Microsoft, Adobe etc. all have their own proprietary DRM products. So a browser that actually wants to show EME content must partner with them. That's the opposite of an open standard.
1) The W3C allows EME to be standardized and we hopefully end up with a predictable standard.
2) The W3C not allow EME to be standardized and we end up with incompatible, proprietary and bug ridden DRM implementations.
People who think there was some other option are delduding themselves. The W3C made the right decision.
EME only standardizes the interface between them and the browser. The DRM itself is completely unspecified here - that's the problem.
Yay, we gave control of huge swaths of the internet to one ad company.
Startup and local enterprises have far less choices than the giants like Netflix, Google, Apple and cable companies.
- HW box: insane venture for a small businesses
- Desktop app: Good luck with adoption! Unless you're Apple and have a way to force your iTunes-equivalent down your users' throats. Also, lots of work specific to desktop apps.
- Mobile app: Again, good luck with adoption. You'll need a way to show the content on larger screens. Also, lots of work specific to each mobile platform.
- Blu-Ray: let's assume not an option
- Browser app: Less adoption friction as it will work on any device with a modern browser (including Smart TVs and game consoles). Lots of work, but can be used for every platform (including native apps by using web views).
Browser apps are clearly the best choice for smaller businesses, except for one problem: no DRM.
Content producers/middlemen see non-DRM content as a piracy risk (a questionable decision) and therefore write requirements for a certain level of "content protection" into their licensing agreements. Smaller businesses have less bargaining power and it is unlikely they could negotiate out such a clause (or convince the middleman of the stupidity of DRM and how it rarely actually prevents piracy).
EME will enable smaller distribution businesses, increasing competition and giving consumers more choice.
> EME will enable smaller distribution businesses, increasing competition and giving consumers more choice.
Illusion of choice. Because the small businesses have smaller bargaining power, they will do whatever their partners will demand them to do. That does not mean that there would be wider choice of content; quite contrary. There would be only more distributors without any power to offer better service. The content producers/middlemen would use them as a tool to protect their position, making sure no other ITMS happens.
As long as anti-circumvention laws are a thing, the real answer should be nothing but a very enthusiastic "no". I don't see how anything covered by anti-circumvention laws could in any way be compatible with the idea or spirit of what is supposed to be Open Web.
>The reason for recommending EME is that by doing so, we lead the industry who developed it in the first place to form a simple, easy to use way of putting encrypted content online, so that there will be interoperability between browsers. This makes it easier for web developers and also for users.
This is also a whole bunch of horse manure considering that the actual DRM part is externalized to proprietary black box extensions so in reality HTML DRM doesn't really do much to improve interopability. A browser vendor needs to basically bundle a black box extension with their browser to handle the DRM, and the DRM needs to approved by vendors like Netflix etc in order for you to actually view DRM'd content on their site. Basically this just entrenches the dominance of existing browsers over the market while making it even harder than before for anyone new to try to tackle the market since now you need to basically please Hollywood if you want to be able to play their content in your browser, all with the blessing of W3C.
Sure, these DRM solutions already exist and will continue to exist, and it doesn't help that two of the three big browser vendors are also DRM vendors themselves (Google & Microsoft), but the last thing we should do is give them official blessing for their practices. It's a huge spit in the face of the Open Web.
EDIT: Some more comments.
> If EME did not exist, vendors could just create new Javascript based versions.
This would be an infinitely more preferable solution to EME, because guess what - this would actually guarantee true interoperability! As long as your browser could run (modern) JS, it would be compatible with a JS-based content protection scheme. Things on eg. Linux would Just Work without having to use rely on Widewine DRM on a closed build of Chrome, for example. So presenting EME vs JS-based protection schemes as equivalent is ridiculous. The latter is vastly less bad than the former.
>And without using the web at all, it is so easy to invite ones viewers to switching to view the content on a proprietary app. And if the closed platforms prohibited DRM in apps, then the large content providers would simply distribute their own set-top boxes and game consoles as the only way to watch their stuff.
If content distributors wanted to try and ignore the web completely in the name of "protecting their content"... by all means, go ahead! Somehow I suspect they wouldn't resort to that, though - they wouldn't be so interested in HTML DRM if they didn't see the web as a valuable venue. Most likely they'd end up restricting web versions to lower quality options while trying to lure people to more closed enviroments with promises of higher quality, but the thing is that they're already doing exactly that anyway even with all the black box DRM they have today so it really wouldn't be all that different from that.
>An important issue here is how much the publisher gets to learn about the user.
This whole list is also ridiculous considering that proprietary black boxes are a way bigger unknown in terms of what they could be doing on the user system than any say, JS-based solution. And the "user tracking" the DRM supposedly couldn't do could be done separately in JS anyway, whether the whole content protection is based on JS or not, so this list is once again basically just a poorly thought distraction.
>Spread to other media
This section is way too short and basically handwaves the issue away. "Music probably won't go back to DRM and books, lol dunno, maybe they'd give up DRM even when we're explicitly endorsing DRM for the web?" Endorsing any kind of DRM in HTML standards has a very real danger of being a slippery slope. Hey, now we can black box DRM <video>. When can we do it to <audio>? Music and audio in general needs protection too! Hey, we got it for <audio>, now where's our DRM support for <img>? Images need to be protected too, they're copyrighted content after all! And what about text? Books and articles need protection too! <p> needs DRM! And suddenly the DOM in your developer tool is just a bunch of black boxes, and the Open Web is no more. In fact, developer tools in general should probably be banned, someone might use them for anti-circumvention purposes after all, and that would be illegal! The Right to Read[1] is uncomfortably real with the possibilities here.
>Despite these issues, users continue to buy DRM-protected content.
Well gee, it's not like legitimate users have much options in many cases. Video especially tends to be DRM-infested pretty much everywhere you go. In many cases piracy is literally your only option when it comes to getting content DRM-free, which is a crying shame. This is once again no reason whatsoever why we should just be okay with it and endorse DRM for what is supposed to be Open Web.
>The web has to be universal, to function at all. It has to be capable of holding crazy ideas of the moment, but also the well polished ideas of the century. It must be able to handle any language and culture. It must be able to include information of all types, and media of many genres. Included in that universality is that it must be able to support free stuff and for-pay stuff, as they are all part of this world. This means that it is good for the web to be able to include movies
Well, I completely agree with that...
>and so for that, it is better for HTML5 to have EME than to not have it.
...but this does not follow In fact, it goes pretty much directly against it.
So exactly whom does it have influence to?
DRM on movies has zero technical effects right now, and still many people manage to get paid, somehow. Maybe they should continue doing what they're doing, but stop forcing privilege escalation bugs onto other people's computers and phones?
It's time to let go of the tiger prevention rock. DRM won't save anyone from copyright infringement, the users' willingness to pay will. Users will pay for convenience or out of respect, and the movie industry is busy undermining both, in part with DRM nonsense.
While I agree the history and context is different, I don't see a fundamental difference between the two.