,
29 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ okay folks, here comes a tweetstorm about DRM, the W3C, and the recently approved EME spec.
2/ first, some background opinion: DRM is a stupid waste of money. If people want to find unprotected premium content, it’s not that hard.
3/ Also, DRM takes control away from users in ways that usually punishes legitimate customers with annoying hoops to jump through.
4/ Many struggle with iTunes auth or some HDMI problem and think “dammit, I’ll just torrent this movie, I already paid for it anyways.”
5/ so yeah, DRM is awful and, in my opinion, close to useless for the big copyright holders anyways.
6/ that said, the people – myself included – want their Netflix. And Netflix wants primo content. And the big content owners want DRM.
7/ so if you want your Netflix content on your laptop through non-torrent means, you’re gonna install some DRM crap on your machine.
8/ pre-EME, that DRM crapware is an all-powerful browser plugin that can fully take over your computer, fingerprint your web activity, etc.
9/ with EME, that DRM crapware is now a good bit more constrained. Can’t talk to the network. Can’t fingerprint you quite as easily.
10/ that is noticeably better than what we had before. It’s essentially a browser plugin API specifically tailored to the function of DRM.
11/ now, it’s still DRM crapware, mind you. Just with one hand tied behind its back so it does less damage.
12/ and yes, the content-protecting part of EME (CDM) cannot be open-source. That sucks, but again alternative DRM options aren’t either.
13/ so you can have your DRM via the catastrophically all-powerful plugin API, or you can have it via the more focused, more secure EME API.
14/ so, am I all in on EME? Not quite. I want to call out @w3c and @timberners_lee and say: I think you can do better than this.
15/ see this EME stuff, it could have been implemented by some browsers and content providers without W3C, as a non-standard extension.
16/ in fact, that’s what happened. Chrome has had some not-yet-standardized version of EME since early 2013.
17/ and I don’t mean to pick on Google, Firefox has had it since mid 2016.
18/ so now comes @W3C’s blessing, which is powerful. It will allow Netflix and content producers to say “we’re fully web-standard.”
19/ so what did @W3C extract from the content producers and Netflix in exchange for this incredibly powerful blessing? Not nearly enough.
21/ see the nasty thing about DRM is that, because of the DMCA, it’s illegal to circumvent DRM protection even if your end goal is legal.
22/ say you buy a movie legally, but because HDMI bug, you can’t play it on your TV. Circumvent protection just to watch it? Not legal!
23/ and there are tons of really legitimate use cases for circumventing DRM that are illegal because of bluntness of the DMCA.
24/ adapting content for people with disabilities. Doing security research to understand if the DRM system is violating your privacy. etc..
25/ the @EFF + others advocated for a simple covenant: Netflix agrees not to sue unless there is actual copyright infringement.
26/ and that is incredibly reasonable! OK, DRM won, but at least let’s blunt insanity of DMCA for accessibility, research, and *legal* uses!
27/ and that @W3C and @timberners_lee, is where you’re failing to stand up for the broader web community.
28/ the W3C’s blessing is powerful. Don’t just rubber-stamp something because it would happen anyways. Use the power to extract concessions.
29/ and that’s a wrap. @timberners_lee happy to talk more about this any time. I hope you’ll consider pushing harder on the @EFF covenant.
