Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#131

Post by izacus » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 3:27 AM UTC

agentdrtran wrote: post #129

chii wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> same technology stack (HTML5 video+JS) for DRM-ful video as for DRM-free video this isn't a pro in my books - i want DRM to be a difficult and cumbersome stack to use. More specifically, i want the end user to go through hassle to obtain the proprietary plugins, so that the end user feels the hurt from DRM. This makes a non-DRM version much more simple to view (just click and play), so that users would vote with th…

> i want DRM to be a difficult and cumbersome stack to use. More specifically, i want the end user to go through hassle to obtain the proprietary plugins, so that the end user feels the hurt from DRM. so you want to make stuff like netflix as much of a PITA as possible? why? why be this vindictive?

No, we want to make Netflix pushing DRM as PITA as possible. Video streaming without DRM works just fine.

(And please don't come back with "Netflix has no choice BS", they're happily doing all the nasty DRM crap for their own production as well.)

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#132

Post by izacus » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 3:28 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #130

chii wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> same technology stack (HTML5 video+JS) for DRM-ful video as for DRM-free video this isn't a pro in my books - i want DRM to be a difficult and cumbersome stack to use. More specifically, i want the end user to go through hassle to obtain the proprietary plugins, so that the end user feels the hurt from DRM. This makes a non-DRM version much more simple to view (just click and play), so that users would vote with th…

That's a very principled position but it should not surprise you that any position with 'make things shittier for users' as a key component is unlikely to be well-received by any and all of: standards bodies, browser vendors, content providers, website developers, users, sane people and many others.

Content providers have happily made experience utterly shitty by adding DRM with no regards to users. I don't think they care about your experience a lot.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#133

Post by pvg » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

izacus wrote: post #132

pvg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very principled position but it should not surprise you that any position with 'make things shittier for users' as a key component is unlikely to be well-received by any and all of: standards bodies, browser vendors, content providers, website developers, users, sane people and many others.

Content providers have happily made experience utterly shitty by adding DRM with no regards to users. I don't think they care about your experience a lot.

They seem to care quite a bit. For instance, browser-based DRM and constrained devices have made the experience vastly better than it was just a few years ago. No plugins, you can download content for offline viewing, etc. So I'm not really seeing how they're making it utterly shitty.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#134

Post by Buge » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 3:40 AM UTC

om2 wrote: post #115

pornel wrote: post #46

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…

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. First, for some browsers, the DRM scheme is built in, not any kind of plugin architecture. 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 us…

>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.

Nope. For any effective DRM (aka what all browsers use) the video codec decoding happens inside the DRM module. Otherwise anyone could just patch the open source browser and grab the decrypted compressed content coming out of the module. In reality, they can only grab the decrypted decompressed content.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#135

Post by kobeya » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 3:42 AM UTC

quickben wrote: post #85

seltzered_ wrote: post #68

A younger version of myself would be against Web DRM, but these days I wonder if there's a potential for it to help in democratizing distribution among indie content producers. Ideally I'd have some time to piece together an essay, but the major points are: 1) Ted Nelson's vision on how Project Xanadu would have some form of copyright protection / micropayments for authors. 2) Independent content creators that have c…

As far as I know/talked to Indies/helped some, no. #1 on most of their lists is getting the music/name out. DRM is counterproductive.

How much of this is a result of the predatory music industry where musicians typically never see anything from album sales anyway?

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#136

Post by Steeeve » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 4:09 AM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #128

Steeeve wrote: post #102

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…

> The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. I disagree that it does no harm. I agree with this quote from the article: "If EME is ratified by the W3C, the FSF expects it to cause a long-term increase in the amount of DRM on the Web, by simplifying the DRM implementation process for streaming services." Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.

Forgive me for having a differing opinion, but just to clarify.

I would agree with the FSF statement that there will be more DRM on the web.

Where I differ is that I believe it would happen regardless. If it's not standard DRM, then it's Apple DRM and Windows DRM... like we already have.

> Standardization is explicit support and encouragement.

Standardization shouldn't be about good or bad. If enough people want to do something, there should be a standard.

Having said all of that, please don't get me wrong. I'm just clarifying how I feel. I do tend to have unpopular opinions. I don't have a dog in the race and I would be perfectly OK with DRM in general being rejected by the W3C because it is a terrible concept that ends up being paid for by consumers.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#137

Post by Steeeve » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 4:20 AM UTC

CharlesW wrote: post #119

Steeeve wrote: post #102

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…

> DRM is a non-starter… […] The fact that this standard is coming to be is just plain silly, but it does no harm in and of itself. 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…

> If that's true, for you and for others who share that opinion, what does it matter?

I don't have a dog in the race. For me, it doesn't. The world would be a better place without DRM and it would be a better place without TSA, but I can do nothing about either.

> 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.

The market was created by Napster and it's cousins. The ability to hand over money was a matter of getting the music labels and movie studios on board - and half of them are still reluctant participants at this point. Anybody can give them money. None of them provides exclusive access to a customer base, and none of them provide a significant boost to sales for products without their own separate marketing.

There's a "Netflix for..." so many different markets because all you need to do is sign a contract with the studios for access to media which they'll deliver directly to customers themselves.

During the time when Tower Records or Target actually provided access to customers that nobody else could provide, the distribution channels were valuable. Now what they accomplish is a simple and easily repeatable commodity.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#138

Post by syshum » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 4:37 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #133

izacus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content providers have happily made experience utterly shitty by adding DRM with no regards to users. I don't think they care about your experience a lot.

They seem to care quite a bit. For instance, browser-based DRM and constrained devices have made the experience vastly better than it was just a few years ago. No plugins, you can download content for offline viewing, etc. So I'm not really seeing how they're making it utterly shitty.

Only if you use a Popular Platform like Android or Windows.

If you use less popular platforms (Linux, Ubuntu Phone, etc) DRM makes it impossible to access content you paid for.

Also if you Root Android, or modify the "approved" platforms in anyway... BAM the DRM kicks you out of your paid for content as well

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#139

Post by kelnos » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 4:39 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #127

om2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. First, for some browsers, the DRM scheme is built in, not any kind of plugin architecture. 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 us…

> same technology stack (HTML5 video+JS) for DRM-ful video as for DRM-free video this isn't a pro in my books - i want DRM to be a difficult and cumbersome stack to use. More specifically, i want the end user to go through hassle to obtain the proprietary plugins, so that the end user feels the hurt from DRM. This makes a non-DRM version much more simple to view (just click and play), so that users would vote with th…

This already happened. We had Flash and Silverlight. This didn't make the Netflixes of the world drop DRM, and it didn't make customers flee for DRM-free solutions. All it did was decrease security for all of us.

But yes, you do have a point that making DRM easier will likely make more content producers consider and implement DRM than before. I'm not sure there is a good solution to this right now, and yours is just vindictive and actively harmful.

Re: Tim Berners-Lee approves Web DRM, but W3C members have two weeks to appeal

#140

Post by izacus » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 4:40 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #133

izacus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content providers have happily made experience utterly shitty by adding DRM with no regards to users. I don't think they care about your experience a lot.

They seem to care quite a bit. For instance, browser-based DRM and constrained devices have made the experience vastly better than it was just a few years ago. No plugins, you can download content for offline viewing, etc. So I'm not really seeing how they're making it utterly shitty.

How is not being able to download files at all, not being able to just move them to another device and being forced to have a n internet connection to watch HDR Blu-Rays a better experience than just double clicking a mp4 file?