I don't understand the point of WebDRM.
You can't simultaneously give us the content and not give us the content.
WebDRM is broken by default and pushing it is just absolutely retarded.
Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
31–40 of 222 posts
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#32The Web in Chains. The symbolism behind the "inventor" of the web signing on this is sending the wrong message to the young ones (the new generation) that idealism must give way to pragmatism and money interests.
Terrible, IMO.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#33What's the reason DRM can't be implemented as an open-source solution? Is the closed source just to prevent people from easily accessing the secret key or are there other reasons it needs to be closed source?
DRM is fundamentally security by obscurity. Being closed source is the only way to maintain obscurity, and thus the illusion of security.
Yeah, this may change (in a somewhat scary way) with the Intel TXT and SGX extensions as then you'd only be relying on the obscurity of the hardware rather than the software.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain how malware could benefit from EME? Note that EME only applies to video.
The reasoning goes that EME is a standard that specifically allows for attaching a closed-source black-box to the browser in a standardized way. This code is not auditable by outside sources, and therefore could be a breeding ground for malware and exploits (standard open-source philosophy that "sunlight is the best disinfectant"---many eyes on open source software minimizes the opportunities for exploitable bugs to…
> This reasoning, IMHO, ignores the fact that the user-agent still asks for consent, so the user may choose not to allow anything they can't audit
Aaaand we're back to the days of good ol' ActiveX.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#35I don't understand the point of WebDRM. You can't simultaneously give us the content and not give us the content. WebDRM is broken by default and pushing it is just absolutely retarded.
As dumb and broken as it is, the state of the world is such that you can't deliver most video without something like it.
So the options are:
1. Stick to your guns and keep it out of the standard, free browsers will be unable to play Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, BBC, etc... Propriety plugins that only work on one browser and/or one platform will exist and be annoying and buggy.
2. Give in and allow this braindamage in the standard because it means most browsers will be able to support video streaming from most sites.
3. Convince the MPAA and all of their members and all of the worldwide organizations like it that DRM is bad and that they should stop demanding it.
In the realm of what the W3C can accomplish, #2 seems like the least worst solution.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#36What's the reason DRM can't be implemented as an open-source solution? Is the closed source just to prevent people from easily accessing the secret key or are there other reasons it needs to be closed source?
A DRM solution could be implemented with disclosed source code (though it would be more difficult than with concealed source code) but the key thing a DRM implementation does is to attest that the user hasn't modified the implementation--i.e. that the user hasn't exercised the freedoms provided by Open Source.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing stops them, and in fact each of the major browsers have already implemented EME.
Chrome has been using EME with Netflix since early 2013. This fight was lost years ago.
The point of web standards isn't to stop browsers from implementing anything else. Such a viewpoint is naive, that's not what W3C is.
Back when IExplorer had a 90% market share, you could have argued that ActiveX needs to be a web standard. But it wasn't considered a standard even if it was a de facto one and now ActiveX is gone.
I must be getting old if I'm talking with people that don't remember the browser wars or what web standards are about.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well this doesn't actually change much in practice. Web browsers have allowed black-box extensions for DRM'd content since the dawn of flash. Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves. The open web is as available today as it ever was, and even more so wit…
> Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. Yes, that's the disgusting part. But so it goes. The flesh is weak. Overlay darknets are indeed the only hope for freedom.
[deleted]
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#39I have given money to the FSF for years and will continue to do so as a member. However, I do not support them in this fight. Berners-Lee is doing the right thing here.
Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal
#40This truly is the death of the open web. I hope the appeal is successful. Freedom seems to be losing on all fronts these days.
Well this doesn't actually change much in practice. Web browsers have allowed black-box extensions for DRM'd content since the dawn of flash. Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves. The open web is as available today as it ever was, and even more so wit…
> Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves.
I don't understand these two sentences in conjunction, which is most of why I don't understand all the complaining about this issue. If, as almost everyone admits, the browser vendors are going to ship DRM-enabled playback one way or the other, what difference does it make whether it's in the official spec?
The HTML5 spec is just a piece of paper that exists to make web developers' lives easier. I don't understand the need to assign attributes like "purity" to it, especially when (as you yourself said), whether or not the DRM is in the spec changes nothing on the ground.