[ewzimm]

Yes, all DRM is easy to bypass right now, but it works as a way to get studios on board with digital distribution. This brings up an interesting point. The main argument against DRM is that it is a slippery slope which will lead to more violations of freedom. But the problem with slippery slope arugments is that they're often unsubstantiated. We often don't know what the long-term effects of something will be.

What if DRM is actually serving the opposite purpose? By appeasing studios with weak protections, it may be preventing stronger digital locks from being developed. It could be that if the FSF and other anti-DRM organizations are effective in removing current standards, the industry will respond by developing something even worse, leading to an ever-stronger DRM arms race.

I'm not saying that I know this will be the result either, just that we don't really know what the effects of defeating standard DRM interfaces will be. The only real solution I can imagine would be to get content distributers not to want DRM, which is a very hard proposition. They have the money and the power, and they won't stop until they get what they want.

[pdkl95]

> DRM is easy to bypass right now

That's because DRM isn't and never has been about preventing copying. The intent has always been to transfer power from consumers to the studios and tech manufacturers. It doesn't matter if the DRM can be defeated by some subset of consumers as long as the idea that you don't have the right to us your purchases as you see fit. As long as this erosion of property rights and the doctrine of first sale becomes normalized and you start believing in artificial scarcity, DRM will have served it's purpose.

This is why it's so important to never compromise and accept any form of DRM. Compromise only shifts the Overton window[1] making change harder in the future.

> it may be preventing stronger digital locks from being developed

Even if "stronger digital locks" was the goal, you don't prevent future locks by allowing them today.

> the industry will respond by developing something even worse

They already do that.

> They have the money and the power

So they can use some of that money to develop their own players if they want to push DRM. There isn't any reason browser authors and the public in general should subsidize selfish businesses.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[ewzimm]

I'm not so sure that haivng a standard way to connect DRM to a browser is changing the Overton Window. It's a technical standard that no users are actually looking at. What percenage of the population would even know the difference between a NPAPI plugin and a HTML5 interface for DRM? If you went on the streets and asked people if they feel less in control of their media because the W3C approved a standard replacement for NPAPI in browsers, would anyone even understand what you're talking about?

There are historical examples where weak DRM became standard and never got replaced. Look at CSS for DVDs. It was broken early on, but nobody bothered to replace it because it was already standard and the hardware was out there for it. Yes, there's different copy protection on Blu-Ray, etc., but a lot of people still use DVDs, and they can easily back them up because of weak encryption.

There's definitely a lot of benefits to creating a culture that values personal control, but I'm just not sure this is working. I want a DRM-free world as much as anyone, but the message is muddled and people just want their Netflix. If Mozilla and the W3C both came out against it, Chrome, Safari, and Edge would still support it, and I think all it would do would make Firefox lose even more market share. I would love to see some evidence that it would come out another way.

[wyager]

Normal users aren't relevant players in the politics of DRM. It's everyone who's tech- and IP-literate who is involved in the politics of DRM.

[ewzimm]

The Overton window though is about what's acceptable in public discourse.

[pdkl95]

Yes. That was my point. The goal is to change public attitudes, not practical enforcement of copyright. This has always been about shifting public discourse.

> It's a technical standard that no users are actually looking at.

Of course users aren't looking at the standard. The shift happened with the technically-minded people that eventually make recommendations to their friends and family. Just look at this very thread where people like you already accept the premise that DRM is anything other than malware that gives control over your hardware to some other party. The fact that you are making arguments that use language such as calling DRM a "digital lock" demonstrates how far the Overton window has already moved.

> If you went on the streets and asked people if they feel less in control of their media because the W3C approved a standard replacement for NPAPI in browsers, would anyone even understand what you're talking about?

You're trying to frame that question to get the answer you want. Of course most people are not familiar with NPAPI. However, if skip the technical jargon and actually ask people about their experiences, you will get very clear answers. I've literally never met anybody that wasn't directly profiting from DRM that thinks crippled video players are fine. Many have mentioned the things they would like to do but can't because of DRM.

> standard replacement for NPAPI

EME is not a replacement for NPAPI. At best it's a replacement for the DRM in Flash.

> weak DRM became standard and never got replaced. Look at CSS for DVDs.

Except it did get replaced - which you admit - in the next version of the hardware (Blu-Ray). The only reason DVD wasn't affected is the large amount of existing hardware. It's simply not possible to update all of the existing hardware players.

However, web browsers are software that updates regularly.

[ewzimm]

I'm not a good representative of public discourse. I've read Richard Stallman's blog for over fifteen years.

What you're talking about with hardware is exactly my point. We're talking about encryption, which I'm sure you support for individuals. Public Key Encryption is great for when you want to send a secret message to someone you trust to keep it secret. But what if you don't trust them? You have to convince them to trust you to have some control over their system, even if in a jail or a restricted VM. DRM is sender-controlled encryption employed by software.

So what happens if you tell the sender you refuse to run software you don't control and they still don't trust you? Their only other option is to convince you to use hardware they control. So rejecting broadcaster-controlled software might just lead to a demand for more broadcaster-controlled hardware. It's been done for years, but now we're moving from a full hardware solution to a more software-based solution, something you can contain and easily run with whatever restrictions you want.

I'm not saying it's good, but I'm not saying it's definitely not progress either.

[ubersoldat2k7]

I work on the video streaming sector and we get the shivers when a client wants a web application. And if anyone thinks media producers will allow their content to be streamed over a DRM free channel they're either naïve or stupid. What Google, Netflix and others want is to stop the mess this is currently on browsers.