RE: I'm opposed to HTML5 DRM

The W3C has already ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML WG [1].  See also the W3C CEO's blog post at [2].



Please do NOT start email threads on this list arguing that EME or DRM is out of scope for the HTML WG.  If you want to discuss such matters please take them somewhere else and possibly to the Restricted Media Community Group [3].



The public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org> email list is for "technical" discussions about the EME and MSE specifications.


/paulc

HTML WG co-chair



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html

[3] http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: Árni Arent [mailto:arniarent@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:33 AM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: I'm opposed to HTML5 DRM

Hi
I'm a programmer by profession and I deal with DRM systems where I work. My 6 years of experience in the IPTV field I am in has taught me lessons about DRM, and why they're bad. I can not go into details on my experiences, but there are big issues when it comes to those DRM systems, their cost, service reliability, end user experience etc. I could explain in further details my experiences if that is needed, I will get permission for that.

DRM affects the overall end-user experience, quality of the service and is a black hole on resources.

There are other ways to ensure content is delivered securely to the right party, e.g. via HTTPS and via one-time use tickets, and they could easily prevent piracy as much as DRM does, and they'd do it for fraction of the cost that DRM costs. YouTube does this.
At the end of the day, if someone really wants to pirate, he can do so with or without stringent DRM controls. It only needs one person to steal a movie and put it online, yet Hollywood has resorted to thermonuclear warfare against the entire populous in the attempt to squash this one annoying fly. And even if it is squashed, another one pops up.
DRM should be banished by law as "pollution" in the digital eco-sphere.

I encourage you to abandon integration of DRM into W3C's Open Web Standards, simply because they are not what the web should be about. Adding protection for certain companies into the web standard is an insult to not all the end users out there but all the other companies that would like protection for their content. Should photo stock companies get image DRM protection? What's next?

Anti-piracy should not be part of HTML5. HTML5 should not care about DRM or piracy. HTML5 should be blind on these. DRM should be none of web's problem, it's an placebo technology that serves no purpose. Piracy is a social issue, and a content distribution issue, and cannot be solved by an obscure standards extension that will likely be ignored by some browser vendors, e.g. Mozilla, effectively creating multiple web standards.
Where I am sitting, DRM has proven to be a disastrous and pointless exercise that has yielded no anti-piracy result. Prolonging the DRM era is a huge mistake, don't contribute to it, end it.

Best regards


--
Kveðjur

Árni Arent
arniarent@gmail.com<mailto:arniarent@gmail.com>