DRM Non-Aggression on the Table at W3C
eff.org
eff.org
Maybe that means changing licenses (like a BSD 4-clause 'no DRM' license).
Maybe it means making client/server software that just doesn't work with DRM, closing down web based DRM, and forcing Hulu etc... to each implement their own clients on every platform (as it was before EME). Maybe get a Netflix competitor to use AGPL3 server and clients, that won't work with distributors that demand DRM.
[0] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Li...
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/dn750984
And on distribution any copy left license would do, because it is DRM ruling itself out, as transparency of the code is incompatible with DRM. That's because all DRM accomplishes is a sort of security by obscurity so there can't be generally accepted solutions that are open-source. There's no DRM in Chromium for example. But except for the browser, it's not distribution that's relevant, which is why organizations like the FSF, the EFF and Mozilla are pissed off about W3C standardizing DRM.
I wouldn't hope for any miracles by Apple, when they are single handily responsible for popularizing DRM amongst consumers, along with Trusted Computing. Their whole iTunes / iPhone business is built on top and the rest of the industry followed.
All you'd see in the open source code is a call to that library (just like a call to a binary blob driver from the Linux kernel, for example).
Hulu etc would not be forced to implement their own clients. Someone would develop a general, easily customizable client that Hulu etc would license that supported a plugin system for the DRM components. Hulu etc would license that.
Even if you want to get post-copyright (I certainly do) we don't improve the situation fueling the copyright lobby with technological force multipliers through our own hard work. Keep them honest with copyleft licenses to keep users free of this kind of nonsense.
... and support the GPL compliance efforts of organisations like Software Freedom Conservancy:
I suspect better content licensing would be best--have a license that forces any distributor to offer media that can be played with FOSS software.
GPLv3 has this clause:
Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden.
And has a definition corollary:
Complete Corresponding Source Code also includes any encryption or authorization codes necessary to install and/or execute the source code of the work, perhaps modified by you, in the recommended or principal context of use, such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications. It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it.
The GPL "stops" apps from using DRM because to use DRM is to violate the license and be liable for copyright infringement.
On OSX specifically, I imagine the Apple had some leaky GPLv3 code somewhere, because they open sourced a lot of Darwin between 2007-2010.
That is, unless they can do cost-benefit. Some markets is just to competitive that you can't waste developer time in order to be afraid of licenses. The game market is very saturated, but there might be places where you can afford to entertain peoples fear.
What if I care about freedom zero? AGPLv3 is incompatible with freedom zero.
I'm not sure you can criticise other people for failing to care about ethical consequences when you are casually prepared to throw away one of the core principles of free software.
They may be misguided, I won't comment on that here. I will just say that my impression is that such an anti-DRM clause exists, and the license that uses it has many detractors.
This would make DRM a problem for the content providers, because Netflix would then have a monopoly on the ability to distribute content with DRM. That's not good for their ability to have any leverage while negotiating.
A similar situation played out with iTunes, and we've got DRM-free music available for sale now.
To rephrase Archer, "Do you want the DOJ to be involved in the creation of (global) web standards through antitrust lawsuits? Because that's how you get the DOJ involved in the creation of web standards through antitrust lawsuits."
Content creators would remain free to license their content using their own technologies.
Apple has successfully shut down people that created implementations compatible with Apple's DRM. To be clear, these people were not breaking Apple's DRM. They were "protecting content" using DRM that was iTunes/iPod compatible, and Apple shut that down.
The critical question is whether rightsholders can use the DMCA (or local equivalent) to sue someone for circumventing DRM technology that isn't their own.
If not, if the only party capable of enforcing anticircumvention is the DRM vendor itself, then this could be very effective.
Any insiders about to provide some sort of perspective?
All of the content is all over torrent sites. The general public are 'non-savvy', or unwilling to take the risk, and seem to continue paying to netflix'n'chill.
So I don't really understand why this is even a thing. It feels like anyone savvy enough to save a HTML5 video and copy it to a USB drive would be savvy enough to open a torrent site. What gives?
The only influence W3C has on DRM is the form it takes: is it implemented through (somewhat) standardized means, using the building blocks of web technology provided by browser vendors, or is it implemented through black-box plugins that we know, after 15+ years of experience, end-users will install.
I have never really understand the role W3C is supposed to play as a pressure point for DRM.
It's not so simple. Content providers want to distribute on the web. Yes, they have the ability to just pull out and avoid that space entirely, but that's not good for them. The web needs their content, but they also need the web.
In other words, the W3C saying no to DRM would apply pressure in the right direction.
That suggests positions can be shifted. And we have seen them shift before, with music downloads, which used to be DRM'ed, but no longer are.
That is a sign they were losing the battle, and they absolutely were with the rise of youtube, facebook video, twitch, etc - alternative video sources were / are starting to get professional, with many major youtube channels having production crew and proper film / showmaking.
The web would have been absolutely fine without them, but they knew they would not survive without the web long term, especially internationally.
EME is enabling black box plugins, simply calling them "extensions" does not magically make them something other than a Black Box binary blobs loaded by the browser.
Functionally they are really no different than the Flash or Silverlight plugin, they simply contain less stuff and are more specialized
W3C is suppose to be promoting the Open Web, that means open regardless of Operating System, Browser Choice, or Nation
EME violates all 3 of those by locking you down to only commercial, or commercially supported browsers (no open source EME, even Mozilla had to pay Adobe to create them a Commercial non-free plugin for FF)
Free/Libre Operating Systems are Excluded from the new w3c vision of the web
EME/DRM enables Geo-fencing of content
In short the EME is a complete bastardization of the w3c mission
So if you want a threat to the "open web" the appification of the world is where you'll find it. I'm not sure it'll be stopped either way (or even that this trend is so terrible), but religious objections to DRM - to push things that way even faster - aren't going to do anything to slow that train down.