DRM in HTML5

Many people have doubts regarding how can possibly be an issue of having DRM on HTML, the foundation language of the entire web. One person in particular had the doubt of "how can it be possible that DRM (closed by its nature) is inserted into a standard?"

I have replied to her about it (in Portuguese), but I think that, with some adaptations and a translation, this text might also have a wider use for those of you trying to understand HTML, standards and DRM. Oh, and don't forget, click on the image in the right to sign a petition against DRM on HTML.

The "short answer"

You should attend to the Document Freedom Day 2013 celebration event nearer to you: they're happening starting today until April all around the world. There, I'm sure, there will be people knowing and willing to explain to you any questions regarding open standards in general and the "DRM in HTML" issue in particular.

The "long answer"

A standard should be considered open if it complies with a number of requisites. Here's the list (taken from this page, that explains each point better):

An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is:

• Subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
• Without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
• Free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
• Managed and further developed independently of any single supplier in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
• Available in multiple complete implementations by competing suppliers, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

Unfortunately not every format is an open standard, or, in other words, doesn't comply with the previous points. If the proposal to have DRM on HTML5 is accepted, HTML will stop being an open standard, since it will stop complying with the second requirement of the list.

In more detail: the proposal on the table is called EME (Encrypted Media Extensions). An HTML document can include EMEs, and the specification of EME enables the website to require a certain "Content Decryption Module" (CDM). And here lies the problem: CDMs aren't standards (much less open standards!) and the EME specification doesn't include or refer to any specification of any CDM. In other words: the definition of open standard we just saw isn't complied, because to implement HTML5 we have to implement EME, which has to accept any CDM, which isn't a standard and so we cannot implement.

In other words, with an example: I make a website, and put there a media object (video, for instance) using EME, and I specify in the HTML document that the EME object needs the CDM module (which is a form of DRM) called "OneTwoThree". Now, if you want to see that website, you need a web browser that knows how to undertand HTML5 and EME (both possible since there's the specification), and the browser then needs to get the CDM called "OneTwoThree" (imagine it as being a browser plugin, not unlike Flash) and use it to play the video. The problems are obvious now: what if the CDM only exists for one specific Operating System? What if the CDM isn't free? You know... the thypical problems of a non-open standard format.

Open Letter To NVIDIA

I'm all for Openess. In my last blog post I talked a little about Open Documents, this time I'm going to talk about something different: hardware. While it doesn't shock me that hardware plans are kept close and secret, I think that hardware specs should be allways open. Hardware specs is what will enable anyone to interact with the hardware you make and using all its features. A great example of why this is needed is NVIDIA: their graphics hardware don't have their specs open, and so the experience of using their hardware in systems like GNU/Linux are far from perfect. To convince NVIDIA to change their policy, there's an Open Letter to NVIDIA, saying:

We the GNU/Linux community and the undersigned, kindly request that you, NVIDIA Corporation, increase your efforts in better enabling the open-source community to develop free software drivers for your graphics hardware. Your major competitors in this market, AMD/ATI and Intel, have not only supported the community in open-source driver development efforts but they are now openly releasing hardware programming documentation.

While we are grateful that your company provides one of the best closed-source graphics drivers for Linux, it is not without its problems and prevents many users from having a truly free software platform. You have shown an open-source passion in the past when dropping the nforce-net binary blob in favor of the community-spawned forcedeth driver for Ethernet support on your motherboard chipsets. There has been a rumor that you may be developing an open-source strategy for your graphics products, so if that is the case please let us know your true intentions. Even if you were only able to open a subset of your Linux driver, this still would show a sign of solidarity to the free software world.

We stand united under the name OpenTheBlob.com, but realize that legally it may be next to impossible to open-source the binary portion of your graphics driver due to patents and preserving some intellectual property in this competitive market. What we are, however, asking you for is to support the open-source community to the fullest extent possible. The open-source "nv" driver that you provide for X is an abhorrent disaster that is limited to 2D acceleration and doesn't come without its share of limitations and shrouded code. We look to NVIDIA for providing concise programming documentation to willing open-source developers that is not encumbered by Non-Disclosure Agreements or other legal restrictions.

There is an interested group of developers at hand that are willing to contribute towards an open 3D NVIDIA driver. The Nouveau developers are committed to these free software ideals to the extent that they have spent years reverse engineering your hardware without ever receiving any funds for this immense work, but rely upon community donations. An official open-source driver could complement your binary driver, in order to provide a better "out of the box" experience on many Linux distributions and satisfying the customers -- including corporate clients -- who mandate open-source software.

In a steadfast manner, we request knowing your true commitment to the GNU/Linux and open-source communities. For everyday that you stand by idle, your competitors are continuing to refine their open-source drivers and pushing out more documentation that is better enabling the open-source community. Please let us know what is going on and join the open-source community in this effort.

If you agree with this text, please consider signing this open letter.

Microsoft acting as a censor?

One comment from this anti-DRM petition [1] says:

Oh and guys signing this petition.. try saying http://freethebbc.info on MSN - the message send will fail! Microsoft are filtering the website on UK MSN at least, so this has loads of attention ;-) keep signing!

Can please someone confirm this behaviour?

UPDATE: OK, seems that they "censor" everything that has .info and profile.php . How pathetic this "security measure" is?

[1] - http://freethebbc.info

Anti-OOXML Portuguese petition

The Anti-OOXML Portuguese petition is now closed and delivered, to be presented on Monday. It has 1277 valid signatures.

I'm somewhat time limited, so for now I'll just leave you with a big THANKS to all of you that have signed. Please consider repeating your act, and sign the international petition.

Portuguese Petition
International Petiton

Portugal: digam não ao OOXML!

Ajuda Portugal a tomar uma boa decisão, diz não ao OOXML!

Queres ter um counter destes? Basta usares este pedaço de HTML no teu blog:

<iframe width='102' height='36' src='http://www.petitiononline.com/signatures.php?petition=OOXMLPT' frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe>

Quick links

Quick links for the day:

• I wonder where is this legal, but being able to capture Last.fm streams into propperly tagged mp3 files is sweet (TheLastRipper);
• Music to check out;
• More music to check out;
• The Portuguese petition against OOXML has surpassed the 1000 signatures;
• UK and Microsoft ignoring the existence of ODF;
• After all Amie.st is not that hot, I'll probably write about this later;
• My musical project has now all its tracks licensed with a Creative Commons license, and the latest CD is almost sold out.

Free the BBC

According to Defective By Design, Binary Freedom just launched FreeTheBBC.info with an open letter to the BBC regarding their decision to use proprietary formats and DRM despite overwhelming public comment early this year in support of open formats and content free of DRM.

I've already signed the petition, and you?

Petition against DRM'd music

One metal magazine out of Sweden has set up a petition against DRM watermarks in music, showing yet another music side of the market - the reviewers.

The entire concept of DRM is inherently broken. It simply doesn't work. The only people that suffer ill-effects from these techniques are those who actually obey the law and aren't committing any wrongful acts. The internet pirates laugh at it and aren't noticably put off by it. DRM is only punishing the people buying and reviewing the records and thus is completely pointless and needs to stop!

Read their full position here, and don't forget to sign.

Tell the European Parliament to Fix IPRED2

On April 24th, the European Parliament will vote on IPRED2, the Second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive. With one stroke, they risk turning thousands of innocent EU citizens and businesses into copycriminals. Only you can stop them.

If IPRED2 passes in its current form, "aiding, abetting, or inciting" copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" in the EU will become a crime.

Penalties for these brand new copycrimes will include permanent bans on doing business, seizure of assets, criminal records, and fines of up to €100,000.

IPRED2's backers say these copycrimes are meant only for professional criminals selling fake merchandise. But Europe already has laws against these fraudsters. With many terms in IPRED2 left unclear or completeley undefined - including "commercial scale" and "incitement" - IPRED2 will expand police authority and make suspects out of legitimate consumers and businesses, slowing innovation and limiting your digital rights.

IPRED2 and Business

The entertainment industry spent millions suing the makers of the first VCRs, MP3 players and digital video recorders, trying to use copyright law to kill those innovative products because they threatened old business models. Fortunately, the industry was unsuccessful.

IPRED2's new crime of "aiding, abetting and inciting" infringement again takes aim at innovators, including open source coders, media-sharing sites like YouTube, and ISPs that refuse to block P2P services.

With the new directive, music labels and Hollywood studios will push for the criminal prosecution of these innovators in Europe, saying their products "incite" piracy - with EU taxpayers covering the costs.

Under IPRED2, these same entertainment companies can work with transnational "joint investigation teams" to advise the authorities on how to investigate and prosecute their rivals!

IPRED2 and Your Digital Freedoms

Criminal law needs to be clear to be fair. While IPRED2 says that only "commercial scale" infringement will be punished, the directive doesn't define "commercial scale" or "incitement." Even IP lawyers can't agree on what are "private" and "personal" uses of copyrighted works. One step over that fuzzy line, however, and anyone could be threatened with punishments intended for professional counterfeiters and organized criminals.

How can ordinary citizens feel safe exercising their rights under copyright and trademark law when serious criminal penalties may be brought against them if they cross the line?

Tell the European Parliament to Fix IPRED2

The excesses of IPRED2 need to be reined back. Sign this petition now!.

Petition for Steve Jobs

Last month, Steve Jobs told the world that he thought DRM was dumb and pointless. He pledged to ditch it on the iTunes Music Store, if only the 4 major music labels would let him. He told us that it was up to the consumers to take action, and that there was nothing he could do, his hands were tied, so to speak. Since then the internet has been abuzz with all kinds of theories and ideas about what Jobs was thinking, and the things he could do to show his commitment.

DefectiveByDesign have drafted an open letter to Steve Jobs asking him to take action and show us that his DRM diatribe represents a pledge that he'll make good on, and not just a prank to divert attention and criticism from Apple.

Visit DefectiveByDesign now to sign the letter and see the countdown to April 1, the deadline by which we have asked Jobs to demonstrate his commitment, otherwise we'll know that his posturing is just an attempt to play us the fool.

Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results

In January 2006 the European Commission published the Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe. The Study resulted from a detailed analysis of the current scholarly journal publication market, together with extensive consultation with all the major stakeholders within the scholarly communication process (researchers, funders, publishers, librarians, research policymakers, etc.). The Study noted that 'dissemination and access to research results is a pillar in the development of the European Research Area' and it made a number of balanced and reasonable recommendations to improve the visibility and usefulness of European research outputs.

One year has passed, and we're still not seeing the recomendations being fulfilled entirely. The first recomendation was:

RECOMMENDATION A1. GUARANTEE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY-FUNDED RESEARCH RESULTS SHORTLY AFTER PUBLICATION

Research funding agencies have a central role in determining researchers' publishing practices. Following the lead of the NIH and other institutions, they should promote and support the archiving of publications in open repositories, after a (possibly domain-specific) time period to be discussed with publishers. This archiving could become a condition for funding.

The following actions could be taken at the European level: (i) Establish a European policy mandating published articles arising from EC-funded research to be available after a given time period in open access archives, and (ii) Explore with Member States and with European research and academic associations whether and how such policies and open repositories could be implemented.

If you, like me, think that this recommendation should be implemented as soon as possible, please consider signing this petition.