DRM is a non-starter and is in reality defective by design.
Pirates have created markets where there were none and are an important part of every entertainment eco-system. It's been that way since the beginning.
This is just another in a long string of bad decisions that attempts to give major distribution channels far more control than they deserve or could ever manage responsibly.
If you want to make money in entertainment, the business plan is simple. 1. Get people to like you. 2. Find a way for those people to get you money. You don't need Google, Netflix, Apple, NBC, CBS, ABC, RKO, ClearChannel, or anybody else that inserts themselves between you and your customers. None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them.
The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. All of the potential problems are today's reality. A rubber stamp by W3C implementing a tag in the HTML spec and blessing a workflow change nothing.
The workflow isn't particularly well thought out - it's not significantly different than what RealMedia or Adobe have had put together for a generation.
The real downside is the fact that browsers will be further plagued with vague integrations. Those integrations will all carry security ramifications that nobody cares to consider until a major exploit is publicized. The fact that so many people are willing to sacrifice their security for access to a 12 year old lionsgate video is beyond me, but such is the nature of the world we live in. Like I said before though... that is a problem that browsers face today. The new "standard" doesn't change much in reality.
> The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself.
I disagree that it does no harm. I agree with this quote from the article:
"If EME is ratified by the W3C, the FSF expects it to cause a long-term increase in the amount of DRM on the Web, by simplifying the DRM implementation process for streaming services."
Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.
Forgive me for having a differing opinion, but just to clarify.
I would agree with the FSF statement that there will be more DRM on the web.
Where I differ is that I believe it would happen regardless. If it's not standard DRM, then it's Apple DRM and Windows DRM... like we already have.
> Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.
Standardization shouldn't be about good or bad. If enough people want to do something, there should be a standard.
Having said all of that, please don't get me wrong. I'm just clarifying how I feel. I do tend to have unpopular opinions. I don't have a dog in the race and I would be perfectly OK with DRM in general being rejected by the W3C because it is a terrible concept that ends up being paid for by consumers.
> If it's not standard DRM, then it's Apple DRM and Windows DRM... like we already have.
which is fragmentation, and bad for businesses that want DRM, but don't want to _pay_ the cost of fragmentation. By adding it to an open standard, they no longer need to deal with end fragmentation (which causes end user a bad experience). But the solution was never to standardize on DRM, but to standardize on _non-DRM_ formats! The pirates can obtain content regardless - DRM only hurts consumers in the long run.
> DRM is a non-starter… […] The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself.
If that's true, for you and for others who share that opinion, what does it matter?
> None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them.
It's hard to take a position like "digital distributors offer no value" seriously when the paid digital media marketplace was created by said distributors.
> If that's true, for you and for others who share that opinion, what does it matter?
I don't have a dog in the race. For me, it doesn't. The world would be a better place without DRM and it would be a better place without TSA, but I can do nothing about either.
> It's hard to take a position like "digital distributors offer no value" seriously when the paid digital media marketplace was created by said distributors.
The market was created by Napster and it's cousins. The ability to hand over money was a matter of getting the music labels and movie studios on board - and half of them are still reluctant participants at this point. Anybody can give them money. None of them provides exclusive access to a customer base, and none of them provide a significant boost to sales for products without their own separate marketing.
There's a "Netflix for..." so many different markets because all you need to do is sign a contract with the studios for access to media which they'll deliver directly to customers themselves.
During the time when Tower Records or Target actually provided access to customers that nobody else could provide, the distribution channels were valuable. Now what they accomplish is a simple and easily repeatable commodity.
Pirates have created markets where there were none and are an important part of every entertainment eco-system. It's been that way since the beginning.
This is just another in a long string of bad decisions that attempts to give major distribution channels far more control than they deserve or could ever manage responsibly.
If you want to make money in entertainment, the business plan is simple. 1. Get people to like you. 2. Find a way for those people to get you money. You don't need Google, Netflix, Apple, NBC, CBS, ABC, RKO, ClearChannel, or anybody else that inserts themselves between you and your customers. None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them.
The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. All of the potential problems are today's reality. A rubber stamp by W3C implementing a tag in the HTML spec and blessing a workflow change nothing.
The FSF is stirring up noise without providing links to what it's talking about. I presume it's this: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
The workflow isn't particularly well thought out - it's not significantly different than what RealMedia or Adobe have had put together for a generation.
The real downside is the fact that browsers will be further plagued with vague integrations. Those integrations will all carry security ramifications that nobody cares to consider until a major exploit is publicized. The fact that so many people are willing to sacrifice their security for access to a 12 year old lionsgate video is beyond me, but such is the nature of the world we live in. Like I said before though... that is a problem that browsers face today. The new "standard" doesn't change much in reality.