[wolfgke]

> What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?

What is supposed to be happen is a zero-tolerance and active fightback against anything DRM-related in the web - be it in the browser or be it a plugin.

[epistasis]

That's a big shift from historical standards. Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? Or from allowing them in, say Firefox?

I'm wondering why this proposal gets so much more attention than all the past DRM that's been on the web. Did people just not realize that it was there?

[khedoros1]

Flash and Silverlight DRM (as an example of 2) weren't previously web standards, and even the 3rd party plugins that included them had significant non-DRM-related uses.

This is a different animal: Adding standardized interfaces to browsers specifically designed to talk to dedicated DRM modules.

[epistasis]

That's what I'm asking about; where was the pushback on those two bits of DRM? The position advocated by the poster I was responding too would take a very harsh view on Flash and Silverlight, even with their other uses.

[khedoros1]

Right, and from what they posted, I'm sure they took a harsh view of DRM-supporting plugins at the time too. I was trying to answer your questions about why there wasn't historically pushback that matches what we're seeing over EME now.

There were people that complained about Netflix using Silverlight, and such (in my case, it meant I couldn't watch it on my PC, for example). People complained about Flash back in its heyday too.

EME isn't causing a general outcry though, outside of certain corners of the tech world.

[wolfgke]

> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM?

I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight.

* OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any application which used it and I don't know anybody who used any application where Flash DRM was used. So the statement still holds.

[thephyber]

Flash and Silverlight plugins have been used by Netflix/Hulu on desktop browsers.

I highly doubt nobody you know has installed them. It's much more likely they simply don't tell you they did or it never came up in conversation.

[WorldMaker]

Plus most of the users using Flash and Silverlight for things like watching movies aren't likely to recognize that they are plugins. The answer to "How do you watch movies online?" is probably "Hulu" or "Netflix". Flash and Silverlight were never brands that non-technical users paid much attention to, they were means to an end. If they install something to "watch movies on Netflix", they may not remember because it was a one-time ask by the site they visit, and whatever it asked them to install didn't matter to the user so long as they could "watch movies on Netflix".

[wolfgke]

> Flash and Silverlight plugins have been used by Netflix/Hulu on desktop browsers.

> I highly doubt nobody you know has installed them

Netflix (let alone Hulu) is not as popular in Germany as it is in the USA.

[emodendroket]

It took the iPhone to kill Flash and even then not having it was one of the biggest complaints about the phone. And they killed it for reasons having nothing to do with DRM.

[emodendroket]

You can't really expect companies like Google, Microsoft, or Apple to take up that mantle -- why would they, when it's not in their interests? If you actually want to fix the problem you probably need to hit the regulatory levers.

[jacamat]

How is it not in their interests?

[MBCook]

It’s actively against their interests.

Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM.

So the browser companies support it.

It’s not manditory, you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online.

If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.

[wolfgke]

> The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM.

If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.

DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.

[emodendroket]

Yes, if you can achieve a massive boycott you might see some success. I don't see anything like a broad-based movement to that end going on right now.

[MBCook]

> DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.

Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it?

And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in trouble.

> As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content...

Far too many people see nothing wrong with piracy. It works on music because it’s so cheap. I don’t think you’ll get 99c TV shows or especially movies any time soon. It probably isn’t sustainable, especially for movies.

So people will pirate, out of cheapness or inability to pay or ‘righteousness’ or whatever.

It’s not going to happen.

> ... I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.

Why should they, from a business perspective, give up control they have now with basically no downside? I don’t even see a moral argument they should give it up.

Now I agree we need better fair use laws, and security people should be able to poke at DRM to make sure it’s not doing evil things. But I don’t see why society, under moral or business obligations, could support outlawing DRM.

[4bpp]

> Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it?

The current state of affairs is that it's not just legal to use DRM, it's illegal (DMCA) to try and break a DRM scheme, _even if you do so in order to exercise your legally guaranteed fair use rights_.

It seems to me that there should be some sort of sort of moral right to self-defense that applies here: just like society/the law recognises that it is morally acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself from someone who is trying to murder you (even if it wouldn't be otherwise), we can recognise that it is morally acceptable to use the legal equivalent of deadly force (ban DRM, make it illegal for them to enforce their right to protect their content) in self-defense (against them using DRM to make it illegal for you to enforce your right to fair use).

More bluntly: Content creators, with their support of the DMCA, have proven that they have no concern for my rights or freedoms. What standing do they have to expect me to have any for theirs?

[MBCook]

Well that comment went as well as I expected. Can someone give a good argument why someone shouldn’t be able to use DRM to protect their content?

[emodendroket]

> If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.

Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice but to vote for it, so there's a model.

But yeah, this conversation, talking about how maybe if we ask Google nicely they'll act against their financial interests, strikes me as pretty naive.

[MBCook]

Honestly I’m not sure it’s possible to make DRM illegal. On what grounds with that be constitutional? Artists have had rights to control how their work is performed in the US forever. How is this any different? Why would one form get protection and not the other?

I mean legally I don’t know if this counts as a free speech argument or not I just don’t see how such a long would end up passing muster.

[felipelemos]

This the only possible way to win on the long run.

[MBCook]

Would an anti-DRM law actually be constitutional?

[emodendroket]

They're likely to just lose users to people jumping ship to browsers that let them watch Netflix and they're all involved in distributing DRM-encumbered content themselves.