DRM to make it into HTML5 standard?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Disturbing development concerning the future of HTML5:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Proposal-to-add-DRM-to-HTML5-meets-resistence-1442781.html
The sad part is that Google is one of the three companies(next to Microsoft and Netflix) who are proposing adding DRM directly into the HTML5 standard.
I am a member!
I'm going to admit I have not read up on this. Wouldn't adding it to a free standard defeat the purposes?
As terrible as it sounds, it is the only way to get big content providers on board with HTML5. They want their streaming content locked down becuase they fear the openness of the internet and think people will steal everything it is more open.
I have a friend who works for a company and their client wanted streaming video and they used Silverlight. I asked him why they used that instead of HTML5 and he said the main reason was because the client demanded DRM. If they didn't put in a type of DRM protection and released the videos anyways, their company would have been in big trouble and had potential litigation on top of losing the client. I brought the issue about Silverlight not working well on Linux and he said it really didn't matter as long as it worked fine on Windows and Mac OSX.
I then brought it to his attention that the content itself was copyrighted and even if the person were to get a local copy of the MP4 or WebM, the video itself belonged to the original copyright holder and it didn't matter if someone shared. I know this brings comparisons to someone sharing a TV show that aired for free "over the air" (like NBC station in the USA) and was released on BitTorrent. Of course that is different because the stations rely on advertising and that advertising is removed from the torrented file. The file for my friend's client would not contain ads and the video would be the same no matter if it was streamed or played locally.
Speaking of streaming, DASH could fill a lot of gaps in adaptive streaming and bring less reliance on Flash, Silverlight, and proprietary technology from Apple and Microsoft: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57623
I am a member!
I always find DRM humorous. It never prevents people from infringing and frequently stops potential eyeballs/customers from accessing the content. Many of those it stop then end up getting the content elsewhere from sources that don't pay the copyright holder/artists/etc. DRM is self-defeating.
The way I also think about it is this: if someone is determined to steal your video whether it is HTML5 video or through Flash and knows how to look into source code and monitor traffic through developer tools or other means, they will probably steal it directly. There is also the fallback on torrents if browser based downloading is too much of a hassle. If the Flash video isn't using a MP4 file directly but has a FLV file, nothing is stopping that advanced user from converting to whatever format they like through ffmpeg or free converter tools.
For the rest of the people who just want to watch videos and don't know how to dig into source code to steal something or seriously do not want to, then standard non-DRM video is fine. Heck, we had this in the past when sites utilized Quicktime or Windows Media browser plugins that simply linked to a file on the server. HTML5 video is essentially the same thing but with the benefit of not needing 3rd party plugins.
We will not resume a discussion we have already had but, anyway, three times writing that users steal movies is too much: "stealing" is defined, in the law, as a *subtraction* of someone's else property. There is no subtraction in the copy of a file. Copying is not theft. The *content industry* (as it calls itself) one more time uses newspeak to blame the users for being good citizens (sharing their culture, using the network in a scalable way, etc.).
My (not original) opinion about DRMs: I do not see any ethics in them. Sections that cannot be skipped; ability for the "content provider" to remove the good you acquire; geographic limitations; player that is imposed (and usually proprietary); impossibility to cite; deny of private copying... DRMs are about controlling private usages. That should never be allowed. If I want to read a book or play a song/movie from the end to the beginning and upside-down, that is my right.
Cool video. Too bad it was uploaded on April 1st so some people may find it an April Fools joke. If they only uploaded it a few days earlier or later. :-)
Cool video. Too bad it was uploaded on April 1st so some people may find it
an April Fools joke. If they only uploaded it a few days earlier or later.
:-)
We will not resume a discussion we have already had but, anyway, three times
writing that users steal movies is too much: "stealing" is defined, in the
law, as a *subtraction* of someone's else property. There is no subtraction
in the copy of a file. Copying is not theft. The *content industry* (as it
calls itself) one more time uses newspeak to blame the users for being good
citizens (sharing their culture, using the network in a scalable way, etc.).
My (not original) opinion about DRMs: I do not see any ethics in them.
Sections that cannot be skipped; ability for the "content provider" to remove
the good you acquire; geographic limitations; player that is imposed (and
usually proprietary); impossibility to cite; deny of private copying... DRMs
are about controlling private usages. That should never be allowed. If I want
to read a book or play a song/movie from the end to the beginning and
upside-down, that is my right.
The way I also think about it is this: if someone is determined to steal your
video whether it is HTML5 video or through Flash and knows how to look into
source code and monitor traffic through developer tools or other means, they
will probably steal it directly. There is also the fallback on torrents if
browser based downloading is too much of a hassle. If the Flash video isn't
using a MP4 file directly but has a FLV file, nothing is stopping that
advanced user from converting to whatever format they like through ffmpeg or
free converter tools.
For the rest of the people who just want to watch videos and don't know how
to dig into source code to steal something or seriously do not want to, then
standard non-DRM video is fine. Heck, we had this in the past when sites
utilized Quicktime or Windows Media browser plugins that simply linked to a
file on the server. HTML5 video is essentially the same thing but with the
benefit of not needing 3rd party plugins.
I am a member!
I always find DRM humorous. It never prevents people from infringing and
frequently stops potential eyeballs/customers from accessing the content.
Many of those it stop then end up getting the content elsewhere from sources
that don't pay the copyright holder/artists/etc. DRM is self-defeating.
I emailed Defective By Design about this. I hope they start a campaign if this DRM attempt gets taken seriously.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires