111–120 of 222 posts
If the W3C does this, it will be time -- regrettably -- to turn away from that organisation and make a completely new one that exists to serve users of the Web rather than those seeking to monetise it. That Tim Berners-Lee has lent his name to this hijacking is shameful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now DRM is the death of you being able to preserve the TV shows you love (they'll just disappear from Netflix after some time and you're not allowed to download them even if you paid for them), the death of being able to watch things on planes and the death of being able to watch things if one of your increasingly unreliable ISPs drops a connection.
What if it was legally bound that a securing tech (enforcing users not to abuse content) HAS to be opened in case of future demise of the author company ? If Apple and iTunes suddenly crash, they have to make a tiny effort into releasing a conversion/stripping tool and/or open source the system so that ex-customers can at least attempt to help themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DRM is fundamentally security by obscurity. Being closed source is the only way to maintain obscurity, and thus the illusion of security.
I disagree. Technologically it is possible to build a content protection system without obscurity, using open source software and open source hardware (and suitable cryptographic bootstrapping). That no one chooses to do so is another matter.
Ultimately my screen has to show me the pixels and my speakers have to play the audio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. However, Widevine is Google's thing and it's plausible that they'd ship it with some non-free build of Chrome. Unless they're worried about trusting the OS, in which case my original argument is void.
Plausible sure. anyone using any other plugin is also plausible, though much less likely. The point is since it's not standard Linux and BSD will get the shaft.
W3C takes advantage of the ambiguity of what the EME spec and "standard" DRM is. People unfamiliar with the spec may think it's the end of plug-ins and a spec for a DRM that is somehow open, implementable and cross-browser. It's nothing like it. It's a small JS API that launches the same old, fully closed, proprietary DRM solutions. The NPAPI has been replaced with DMCA-protected interface, and previously separate DR…
Second, without EME, the state of the art for DRM video was to run the whole playback path through a plugin. Now, only the DRM bit is generally going to be hidden in binary blob (whether plugin or not.)
This has some important advantages:
* Web content authors can build video players using the same technology stack (HTML5 video+JS) for DRM-ful video as for DRM-free video. No need to learn a whole different plugin environment for this case.
* Video playback only has one code path, instead of totally separate browser and plugin video pipelines. Video codecs are complex, so this means less security attack surface.
* The browser's built-in playback is generally much more power-efficient, meaning more video viewing time on battery for your Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc video content.
* Even if the DRM scheme is some form of plugin, it needs far fewer capabilities than a plugin that has full video playback, live streaming, a scripting environment, etc. So it's less of a security risk
* Flash and Silverlight especially were common sources of critical security vulnerabilities and they'll be out of the picture.
* With approaches like MPEG Common Encryption[1], a single encrypted media resource can be used with multiple DRM schemes. This helps content hosts save on storage, and it makes it materially easier for new browsers to enter the market, since they don't have to ask content providers to host a whole separate copy of the video.
The continuing existence of DRM is admittedly not ideal. But supporting it in the browser instead of solely in the separate world of plugins has major user and developer benefits, as described above.
I want two things, at least, from the web:
1. An open platform where I can post content on my own web site, link to other people's web sites, and let them link to my sites.
2. I like to buy access to entertainment: Google Play Music and Movies, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now.
Ideally I should be able to have both of theses modes of using the web, and people who don't want DRM should be able to disable DRM and rent Bluray movies, check movies out of their local libraries, etc. There are some producers, like Spiritual Circle Cinema and others, who sell DRM free video.
I would like to see everyone get everything they want from the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the detailed description. > .. which passes it encrypted via HDCP2 to the monitor. And where does the decryption actually takes place? > EDIT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content... > In order to make a device that plays HDCP-enabled work, the manufacturer must obtain a license from Intel subsidiary Digital Content Protection LLC, pay an annual fee, and submit to various conditions.…
> How about the case where the hardware doesn't support it. Would screen-grabbing be possible then? Where will the decryption take place in that case? You don't get the content then. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has DRM ever actually stopped piracy?
The one example I have ever seen is Denuvo DRM for PC games, in certain games for (very) limited times. Denuvo has gained widespread adoption among AAA game publishers because it tends to hold for the critical period when a game first goes on sale. The DRM is typically broken within weeks but that is good enough for the publisher, as the release period has generally passed by that point. They made their sales.
(This isn't to argue in favor of DRM on the web. It ought to stay in its restricted-device ghetto.)
DRM is a non-starter and is in reality defective by design. Pirates have created markets where there were none and are an important part of every entertainment eco-system. It's been that way since the beginning. This is just another in a long string of bad decisions that attempts to give major distribution channels far more control than they deserve or could ever manage responsibly. If you want to make money in enter…
If that's true, for you and for others who share that opinion, what does it matter?
> None of them provides enough real value to anybody who didn't already have a market before leveraging them.
It's hard to take a position like "digital distributors offer no value" seriously when the paid digital media marketplace was created by said distributors.
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.