Mostly…, looks like DVD-Ranger can remove it, but there may still be audible artifacts. http://www.dvd2hd.com/_dl/cinex_wp_release1.pdf
Is it ironic that in their attempt to prevent consumers from making perfect copies the solution here is to degrade the original?
Are you saying that whatwg should be an alternative to support instead of W3C?
If it means Netflix can be used on Linux then I see this as a big step forward.
DRM is a pile of wank, but it exists and isn’t going away. As Silverlight is used because of it’s DRM capabilities I see this as a net benefit.
It’s not like they’re adding DRM to the internet - they’re just enabling it as an option for video. Unless I misunderstand…
I was getting tired of the Internet anyway.
Uhm, I dunno. I expect its remit is not so broad. It’s just interesting that w3c went off on the XHTML route and whatwg developed HTML5 and w3c’s solution was sidelined in favour of whatwg’s.
Yes, so it is the binary blob way. Annoying even when it works, and blocks out users who do not want to use the approved systems.
The Content Decryption Module would still need to work under Linux. It may be easier to write wrappers (think Wine) around a simple decryption layer, but it’s not like it would just work. In fact, I doubt any implementation will be a simple decryption layer. Shipping the decrypted layers back to the browser to would rather negate the point of the DRM, so there’s going to be some platform specific rendering stuff going on.
In fact, what’s the point of the whole thing given that? Is it just to make it a bit easier for DRM extension writers to write the extensions (by defining some architecture already)? I honestly can’t understand why the w3c thinks this is within their remit and what they hope to achieve by it.
Absolutely - nothing has changed about the Web over the past 20 years, maybe now we will start getting some tiny shred of innovation.
The draft is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
It is basically an API for binary blobs, external to the browser, which will be handling DRM for audio and video. Personally, I wouldn’t be that optimistic about Linux support. The binary blobs would have to be ported and the DRM folks will probably want more lockdown of the system than is feasible in linux.
So…the entire internet is going to slowly become one big flash blob? Gross. As a web developer who views source of my company’s older projects to get ideas for how to implement similar HTML/JS for my company’s new projects, super, extra gross.
So i just carry on pirating, and nothing breaks, right?
In which case I am disappoint.
I thought that at the very least it would improve crap like that.
This seems to suggest that open interoperability and being able to write a browser for all content in open source code was a design flaw of the web. That is not true and I think there are very few people that would agree. Also I use Chrome which I like especially since they use https for all searches. However as Google is search engine, email provider and browser manufacturer, the moment they start deciding about my content, or decide that it is necessary to create an opaque blob injection mechanism on my computer, I will start looking for another browser. The last thing I want is an application I cannot control, executing unknown code and doing unknown monitoring and reporting of my computer, with a hidden agenda. Google would be absolutely stupid to touch this with a ten foot pole even, considering its need to come out looking transparent and respecting of privacy. The blob will scan your computer and control your ability to copy and share content at a deeper level than anything to this point. They are 10 years too late.
p.s. I don’t remember anyone saying that blobs delivered with this mechanism are not allowed to include executable code.
Maybe because you’ve developed the talent to develop such applications by… view-source (and even if you didn’t, I can assure you that whoever taught you did learn that way – there weren’t many formal courses on html/css/js back in 1994). By removing that type of tool, you’re removing the potential for other people to learn the same way you did.
This mindset is typical of industries where weak and insecure incumbents want to shut the door behind them to new competitors.
The facts of life.
To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal.
A coding sequence cannot be revised once it’s been established.
Why not?
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Then the ship sinks.
What about EMS recombination?
We’ve already tried it.
Ethyl methane sulfonate is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen.
It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Then a repressor protein that blocks the operating cells.
Wouldn’t obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication.
So that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you’ve got a virus again.
But this, all of this, is academic.
You were made as well as we could make you.
But not to last.
The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
And you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.
Look at you.
This is just a standard for plugins to pipe content through the browser. It’s basically just like flash, except every browser now has a standard way to hook into it in a limited way. It changes little from a technical perspective.
The real risk is political: the slippery-slope argument that now every man and his dog will ask for similar standards for his own pet brand of content, be it fonts, cat pictures or kitchen recipes.
I think this risk is somewhat mitigated by the effort required to implement such standards: you can write the most beautiful rules on paper, but someone has to develop an actual browser for them, which takes a lot of time and effort. I don’t think supporting DRM is high on the list of priorities for people like the Mozilla Foundation (or at least it shouldn’t be, in theory), and OSS folks in general have an irritating habit of supporting such schemes by breaking them first.
It’s clear the first implementation of this standard will be produced by Microsoft, likely with help from Netflix/Hollywood. If it’s broken quickly enough, others might give up their dream of locking down the browser, which would then look clearly unrealistic. If it stays unbroken for a few years, then the gates will be wide open for all sort of dirty stuff to creep into HTML, and the reputation of Sir Tim will be in tatters (especially after waxing lyrical on the need for an open web for years before this climbdown).
Yeah well… google TPM. Lobbying efforts involve the full stack, don’t you worry; the idea is that the browser will ask the OS for locked-down content, the OS will in turn ask specialised TPM chips, which then fetch an encrypted datastream. TPM chips are already on all new computers, you’re just given the option to disable them from BIOS if you have access to it. They’re currently used mostly by Windows to enforce licensing and boot integrity, but as soon as the content industry has real uses for them (which they didn’t until now, more or less), expect things to change.
I can see a near-distant future where you need to buy unlocked machines imported from Taiwan if you want to install unsanctioned OSes that will be able to rip Netflix videos. It may or may not happen, but it’s not an impossible scenario to contemplate.
To be fair, Mozilla/Firefox, Konqueror etc kept existing even when IE was the only one that could reliably support plugins and stuff, in the same way as Linux exists in a world where commercial interests still develop for Windows first and foremost. But yeah, these barriers can become tough to break.
Pretty much.
The studios/labels are too busy worrying about how to lock down any and every possible channel of delivery.
Meanwhile, their end product - music, movies and entertainment - is absolutely wretched these days.
