Read this online here: http://freeculture.org/blog/2013/04/23/dont-let-the-myths-fool-you-the-w3cs-plan-for-drm-in-html5-is-a-betrayal-to-all-web-users/
And signal boost! https://identi.ca/notice/100717227 https://twitter.com/freeculture/status/326842425337323520 http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/1cz0mq/dont_let_the_myths_fool_you_drm_in_html5_is_a/ -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Free Culture Foundation <[email protected]> > Reply-to: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization > in particular <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FC-discuss] Don’t let the myths fool you: the W3C’s plan for > DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal to all web users. > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:04 -0000 > > A handful of myths have become common defenses of the W3C's plan for > "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME), a [Digital Restrictions > Management][1] (DRM) scheme for HTML5, the next version of the markup > language upon which the Web is built. > > These arguments obscure the threat this poses to a free and open web and > why we must [send a strong and clear message to the W3C and its member > organizations][2], that **DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal to all Web users > and undermines the W3C's self-stated [mission][3] to make the benefits > of the Web "available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, > network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, > or physical or mental ability." The W3C exists to bring the vision of > ****an undivided 'One Web' to its full potential, and DRM is > antithetical to that goal. ** > > [![][4]][2] > > Among the most popular claims are: > > 1. that DRM doesn't work; that it exists to protect creators, but > since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely > ineffective and irrelevant > > 2. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end > to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash > Player and Micrisoft Silverlight > > 3. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other > media giants to finally start giving the Web priority over delivering > media over traditional means > > All of these myths depend on dangerous misconceptions of how the planned > Encrypted Media Extensions work, why Hollywood's threat of boycott is > completely empty, who DRM is actually built for, and what the purpose of > free and open Web standards is. Implementing the EME proposal would > simultaneously legitimize DRM through the HTML5 standard and needlessly > concede the very purpose of Web standards. This is not a compromise for > the advancement of the Web, it's a complete concession of the principles > of the W3C. > > The next time any of those myths come up, you can use the following to > respond: > > **1. DRM is not about protecting copyright. That is a straw man. DRM is > about limiting the functionality of devices and selling features back in > the form of services.** > > Public perception of DRM is that it exists to prevent unauthorized > copying, but that it's inherently ineffective because it's impossible to > simultaneously show someone something and keep it hidden from them. This > is a grave mistake that hides the actual function of DRM, which is > overwhelmingly successful: to prevent completely legal uses of > technology so that media companies can charge over and over for services > which provide functionality that should never have been removed to begin > with. > > Copyright already provides leverage against media distributors, but DRM > provides leverage against technological innovations which have given > users the capability to do much more with media than ever before. Free > of technologically imposed limits, anyone can view their media whenever > they want, wherever they want, on whichever devices they want, and > however they want. By imposing digital restrictions, media giants can > prevent users from skipping advertisements or viewing media on multiple > devices, and then charging for the relief from those antifeatures. This > gives media companies total control over how people use their technology > and creates a huge market out of artificially produced scarcity. This > exploitative practice targets the vast majority of users who acquire > their media legally, and it's already stunted the growth of the Web > enough. > > Ian Hickson, the author and maintainer of the HTML5 specification, is > not only overseeing the HTML5 standard at the W3C but also an engineer > at Google (ironically, one of the biggest corporate proponents of the > EME proposal). He blasts the idea that DRM's purpose is to enforce > copyrights and [explains the distinction thoroughly][5]: > > > Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM > is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM > systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM > proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass > market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a > black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in the music space not > because DRM is doomed, but because the content providers sold their > digital content without DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they > didn't expect (such as "MP3″ players). Had CDs been encrypted, iPods > would not have been able to read their content, because the content > providers would have been able to use their DRM contracts as leverage to > prevent it. DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over > software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying that purpose well. > > **2. DRM in HTML5 doesn't obviate proprietary browser plug-ins, it > encourages them.** > > The web would certainly be better off without Microsoft Silverlight and > Adobe Flash Player, but the idea that putting DRM into HTML itself to > make them obsolete is absurd. New implementations of anti-user > technology are not preferable to old implementations of anti-user > technology. While it may eliminate the corporate demands for Silverlight > and Flash, at least in their current incarnation, the Encrypted Media > Extensions plan takes what makes those particular technologies terrible > for users (digital restrictions management, poor cross-platform support, > etc) and injects it directly into the fabric of the Web. > > Providing a space for a DRM scheme in HTML5 invites the kind of > incompatibilities that HTML was created to undo. EMEs would require that > proprietary browsers and operating systems implement more restrictive > antifeatures to prevent bypassing the DRM, and as the corollary to this, > EMEs would be able to detect whether the user's software did not have > such antifeatures (as is the case with free/libre and open source > software, specifically GNU+Linux operating systems) and refuse to > deliver the media. > > As [the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) writes][6]: > > > The EME proposal suffers from many of these problems because it > explicitly abdicates responsibility on compatibility issues and lets Web > sites require specific proprietary third-party software or even special > hardware and particular operating systems (all referred to under the > generic name "content decryption modules", or CDMs, and none of them > specified by EME). EME's authors keep saying that what CDMs are, and do, > and where they come from is totally outside of the scope of EME, and > that EME itself can't be thought of as DRM because not all CDMs are DRM > systems. Yet if the client can't prove it's running the particular > proprietary thing the site demands, and hence doesn't have an approved > CDM, it can't render the site's content. Perversely, this is exactly the > reverse of the reason that the World Wide Web Consortium exists in the > first place. W3C is there to create comprehensible, publicly- > implementable standards that will guarantee interoperability, not to > facilitate an explosion of new mutually-incompatible software and of > sites and services that can only be accessed by particular devices or > applications. But EME is a proposal to bring exactly that dysfunctional > dynamic into HTML5, even risking a return to the "bad old days, before > the Web" of deliberately limited interoperability. > > > > > > … > > > > > > All too often, technology companies have raced against each other to > build restrictive tangleware that suits Hollywood's whims, selling out > their users in the process. But open Web standards are an antidote to > that dynamic, and it would be a terrible mistake for the Web community > to leave the door open for Hollywood's gangrenous anti-technology > culture to infect W3C standards. It would undermine the very purposes > for which HTML5 exists: to build an open-ecosystem alternatives to all > the functionality that is missing in previous Web standards, without the > problems of device limitations, platform incompatibility, and non- > transparency that were created by platforms like Flash. HTML5 was > supposed to be better than Flash, and excluding DRM is exactly what > would make it better. > > **3. The Web doesn't need big media; big media needs the Web.** > > The idea that Hollywood, the MPAA, RIAA, or any other media giant has > buying-power over the Web is a farce. The Web is here, it is the nexus > of media convergence, and it's eating up other industries. Big media > companies know that they must adapt or go out of business, but they are > audaciously attempting to convince us that the Web should provide them > with another, more expansive system of control over online media > distribution on top of the already far-reaching legal restrictions they > [abuse][7]. These threats are not new. During the [Broadcast Flag > ][8]negotiations to implement DRM for high-definition digital > television, > > > MPAA's Fritz Attaway said that "high-value content will migrate away" > from television if the Broadcast Flag wasn't imposed; he told Congress > that fears of infringement without a Broadcast Flag mandate "will lead > content creators to cease making their high-value programming available > for distribution over digital broadcast television [and] the DTV > transition would be seriously threatened." > > Glynn Moody elaborates on these hollow threats [attacking free software > and the free and open web][9]: > > > Let's look at the record on threats to boycott non-DRM broadcasting > from these companies. In 2003, the US Broadcast Protection Discussion > Group (a committee in the Hollywood-based Copy Protection Technical > Working Group) went to work on a plan for adding DRM called the > Broadcast Flag to America's high-def broadcasts. I attended every one of > these meetings, working on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation > and the free/open TV projects it represented, including MythTV (an open > video-recorder) and GNU Radio (an open radio/TV receiver). > > > > > > Over and over again, the rightsholders in the room during the > Broadcast Flag negotiations attempted to create a sense of urgency by > threatening to boycott American high-def telly if they didn't get DRM. > They repeated these threats in their submissions to the Federal > Communications Commission (Ofcom's US counterpart) and in their meetings > with American lawmakers. > > > > > > And here's how it turned out: > > > > > > So what happened? Did they make good on their threats? Did they go to > their shareholders and explain that the reason they weren't broadcasting > anything this year is because the government wouldn't let them control > TVs? > > > > > > No. They broadcast. They continue to broadcast today, with no DRM. > > The EFF makes this abundantly clear in [their statement][6]: > > > The perception is that Hollywood will never allow movies onto the Web > if it can't encumber them with DRM restrictions. But the threat that > Hollywood could take its toys and go home is illusory. Every film that > Hollywood releases is already available for those who really want to > pirate a copy. Huge volumes of music are sold by iTunes, Amazon, > Magnatune and dozens of other sites without the need for DRM. Streaming > services like Netflix and Spotify have succeeded because they are more > convenient than piratical alternatives, not because DRM does anything to > enhance their economics. The only logically coherent reason for > Hollywood to demand DRM is that the movie studios want veto controls > over how mainstream technologies are designed. Movie studios have used > DRM to enforce arbitrary restrictions on products, including preventing > fast-forwarding and imposing regional playback controls, and created > complicated and expensive "compliance" regimes for compliant technology > companies that give small consortia of media and big tech companies a > veto right on innovation. > > **Protect internet freedom: tell the W3C that DRM has no place in their > standards.** > > Help [Defective by Design][10], the [Free Software Foundation][11]'s > campaign against DRM gather 50,000 signatures against DRM in HTML5. > > Sign the petition here: > > [http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5][2] > > You can also contact the W3C here: > > [http://www.w3.org/Consortium/contact][12] > > [1]: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm > > [2]: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 > > [3]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html > > [4]: http://freeculture.org/files/2013/04/hollyweb.jpeg > > [5]: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 > > [6]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/defend-open-web-keep-drm- > out-w3c-standards > > [7]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/fifteen-years-dmca-abuse > > [8]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/dtv-era-no-broadcast > > [9]: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/02/bbc- > attacks-the-open-web-gnulinux-in-danger/index.htm > > [10]: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ > > [11]: https://www.fsf.org/ > > [12]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/contact > > URL: > http://freeculture.org/blog/2013/04/23/dont-let-the-myths-fool-you-the-w3cs-plan-for-drm-in-html5-is-a-betrayal-to-all-web-users/ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
