Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

defectivebydesign.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 222 posts

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

#181

Post by icebraining »

agumonkey wrote: post #73
izacus wrote: post #62

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.

Netflix is a streaming company. Users have no rights to the content after their contract with the platform expires. Hell, they have no rights to the content if Netflix happens to remove it from the platform.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

metajack wrote: post #80
jandrese wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Free browsers can't play Netflix anyway, because EME is just a standardized interface to a proprietary CDM, which one must license from a vendor (Microsoft of Google mostly). What giving in achieved is a reasonable security story around the CDM module as opposed to the free for all of NPAPI plugins. It still totally sucks, but at least hte capabilities of these CDMs are quite limited.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by icebraining »

cyphar wrote: post #179
icebraining wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we as a community saying that corporations are allowed to piggyback on the hard work of the free software community What work of the free software community? Except for Firefox, all browsers with any market share are developed by big corporations.

I feel like you may have forgotten Firefox's role in history. Firefox unambiguously saved the world from Microsoft taking control of the web. Not to mention that Chromium is a free sofware project. It doesn't matter that the largest contributor is Google (it does for the top-level discussion of why the hell did Chromium implement this), the project itself is free software and is thus part of the free software communi…

I feel like you may have forgotten Firefox's role in history. Firefox unambiguously saved the world from Microsoft taking control of the web.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how that's relevant to "bigcorps piggybacking on the work by the free software community". I'm pretty sure media corps would be fine with an IE world.

Not to mention that Chromium is a free sofware project. It doesn't matter that the largest contributor is Google (it does for the top-level discussion of why the hell did Chromium implement this), the project itself is free software and is thus part of the free software community.

Chromium is developed by the work paid by bigcorps, not by the free software community. The code being open source doesn't change this.

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

#184

Post by coldtea »

yellowapple wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Try pirating Reason or Cubase for one...

I've pirated Reason on occasion. Not lately, though.

Yes, but not after they've added the dongle protection (and new (driver based?) check system).

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

#185

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

hopeaboutthis wrote: post #148
izacus wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

i agree with netflix, straight up. they invest quite a lot in infrastructure and production to provide these videos, and making it simpler for average folks to get their protected videos in a profitable manner is a win for everyone except idealistic pirates. i don't get why i'd care about the needs of the people who want to ruin a fertile ecosystem for some abstract principle.

With DRM+streaming as default the world will be relying on rights holders and streaming services to preserve an archive of cultural works. A situation that invariably will result in loss of a lot of those works once they stop caring or go out of business.

Consider f.ex. the situation with the missing Dr. Who episodes. BBC is still hopping it can recover copies from the public. Had they'd been aired with DRM at the time they would be lost without hope, now at least there is hope.

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

#186

Post by ZenoArrow »

coldtea wrote: post #184
yellowapple wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've pirated Reason on occasion. Not lately, though.

Yes, but not after they've added the dongle protection (and new (driver based?) check system).

Other software with dongle-based protection has been pirated in the past. There will almost certainly be ways of circumventing this protection if software crackers want to do it.

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

#187

Post by pvg »

chii wrote: post #159
pvg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This started with someone claiming what should happen is DRM'ed video streaming should be made a difficult and unpleasant experience. Standards bodies and implementors aren't going to do that. What's more, their collective efforts have made the usability better, the availability of content better and as a free bonus, the security is better. That's all.

> DRM'ed video streaming should be made a difficult and unpleasant experience. why can't DRM'ed video be difficult and unpleasant, but DRM-free videos be made much easier to implement, and have smooth experience for end users? Why is DRM-free a non-starter? The whole point i wanted to make is that by making DRM'ed video easier to deploy (and consume), it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_. Why are standards bodies p…

it normalizes the fact that _it's DRM_

That ship has long, long sailed and, despite all predictions to the contrary, has actually been pretty good for users. Again, it's you who suggested everyone should stop and shittify the existing user experience that most people like. That's neither realistic nor constructive.

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

#188

Post by coldtea »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #186
coldtea wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but not after they've added the dongle protection (and new (driver based?) check system).

Other software with dongle-based protection has been pirated in the past. There will almost certainly be ways of circumventing this protection if software crackers want to do it.

I can't fathom a reason why "software crackers" don't want to do Cubase and/or Reason though.

The thing is, those "dongle-based protection" have been pirated in the past only in the rare cases where an issue was found in the dongle scheme or keys where leaked, etc. And those don't happen frequently -- whereas any old school copy protection method was broken a few days/weeks at most post release (sometimes even before release, from the demo/alpha versions).

Hasn't happened in 5-10 years for lots of physical key based products, so even if possible again, it's of theoritical and not practical value (we ain't seeing them anytime soon).

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

#189

Post by gsnedders »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #121
wbl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildvine works on Linux today.

And other plugins that other providers might choose to use?

In most browsers, they aren't actually plugins in the typical sense. As far as I'm aware, Chrome doesn't allow any other EME modules to be installed, so if a provider wants to work with Chrome they must support Widevine.

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

#190

Post by DanBC »

coldtea wrote: post #188
ZenoArrow wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other software with dongle-based protection has been pirated in the past. There will almost certainly be ways of circumventing this protection if software crackers want to do it.

I can't fathom a reason why "software crackers" don't want to do Cubase and/or Reason though. The thing is, those "dongle-based protection" have been pirated in the past only in the rare cases where an issue was found in the dongle scheme or keys where leaked, etc. And those don't happen frequently -- whereas any old school copy protection method was broken a few days/weeks at most post release (sometimes even before…

Fravia said, very roughly, that some of the dongle systems were secure, but the implementation by software vendors was often lousy.

I guess they've stopped being lousy at the implementation.

Post reply on HN