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

191–200 of 222 posts

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

#191

Post by librarian42 »

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…

> i want DRM to be a difficult and cumbersome stack to use

Exactly. Even flash plugins are too easy, really, so long as flash is ubiquitous. NOW would be the time to hit it, as flash is less common (almost completely absent on mobile) and silverlight is deprecated.

Imagine if Apple and Microsoft and Real had agreed on an easy and ubiquitous plugin framework for music DRM.

We would still be dealing with near-universal DRM for music today.

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

#192

Post by coldtea »

DanBC wrote: post #190
coldtea wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Had to look who Fravia is (or was) -- interesting stuff.

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

#193

Post by librarian42 »

kelnos wrote: post #139
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…

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…

Flash and Silverlight were low friction. And both are deprecated or unavailable on a lot of players now.

Making DRM harder for the end user is the only effective push-back. It worked for music. It's working for e-Books. It would have worked for movies... if it wasn't for this.

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

#194

Post by DanBC »

librarian42 wrote: post #193
kelnos wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Flash and Silverlight were low friction. And both are deprecated or unavailable on a lot of players now. Making DRM harder for the end user is the only effective push-back. It worked for music. It's working for e-Books. It would have worked for movies... if it wasn't for this.

> It's working for e-Books.

How is it working for ebooks, when the leading vendor has introduced more severe DRM?

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

#195

Post by librarian42 »

pvg wrote: post #187
chii wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Earlier this year I downloaded a season of a TV show I wanted to catch up on, into Google Play on my tablet. A few weeks later I was on a plane, and finally had a chance to watch them. Google Play had blithely decided to save space (possibly prompted by the OS) and had removed my downloads.

If they weren't DRMed I would have just downloaded them into space I control and there would have been none of this "oh he's not interested" BS guessing.

I deal with this kind of bovine exhaust regularly.

So, hell, no, DRM has NOT IN ANY WAY been good for me. ANYTHING that makes DRM less viable is an absolute good. Period.

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

#196

Post by librarian42 »

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?

Netflix chooses to use DRM. That's completely on them.

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

#197

Post by syshum »

icebraining wrote: post #175
syshum wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>but this DRM is now running on a sandbox environment I see this said many times, and it is highly over rated. while Technically speaking yes it calls for a "sandbox" but the need for "Computer Verification" means the CDM has to have full access to the entire system to verify the evil user is not attempting to capture the output. So the sandbox is not really protecting much unless the operating system itself has the…

Regarding the sandbox, that's not correct on all browsers: [I]n Firefox the sandbox prohibits the CDM from fingerprinting the user’s device. Instead, the CDM asks the sandbox to supply a per-device unique identifier. This sandbox-generated unique identifier allows the CDM to bind content to a single device as the content industry insists on, but it does so without revealing additional information about the user or th…

A lot has changed since 2014, including the adoption of Google Widevine CDM over Adobe Access CDM.

The sandbox has also changed as have the requirements from vendors and content provider. and while firefox has protected the user better than others, this is also why Firefox is restricted to 720p by all content providers and will likely never get anything more than 720p because they do not allow the deep Operating system inspection and bypasses required to allow for HD and 4K content.

Currently only MS PlayReady on windows 10 is allowed to play back Netflix 4K content because PlayReady is built into the Operating System and treats the User as the enemy.

Mozilla in their ever ending chase to recover some market share has proven time and time again they will sacrifice privacy, and their more Technical User base in order to keep up with Chrome and get back some "regular users" So if Netflix says "We will give you HD content if you drop the sandbox and give widevine full access to the users system" I have little reason to believe Mozilla will not say "Yes Sir Mr. Hastings, anything you want"

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

#198

Post by syshum »

jopsen wrote: post #168
izacus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that part of standard DRM schemes is also "Computer verification" - e.g. that they refuse to work if your PC doesn't have the correct kernel, drivers or software installed. If you need special drivers to fix compatibility, want to customize your Android or do anything but leave your system full untouched and bloated, might be that you'll be prevented from watching online videos.

To some extend perhaps... One of the key arguments when Mozilla decided to implement EME was that the crappy-proprietary-code could be sandboxed by firefox to ensure that it doesn't infect a system with malware, spy on users, etc. From a security perspective it's light years better than flash and other crappy plugins.

And when they did that, the Content providers responded by saying "Ok then we will only allow you access to low quality content" i.e you can only stream upto 1280x720 resolution on firefox, no 1080 content, and no 4K content..

Today that has low impact, in a few years that situation will be untenable for FF and they will be "forced" to cave once again in order to appease users that do not care about privacy or security

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

#199

Post by untog »

chii wrote: post #154
kelnos wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We had Flash and Silverlight. and when apple decides to drop flash support, what happened? Did netflix or any other video content producer suddenly decide to stop supporting those devices? No, they went with html5 video (and at that time, free of DRM). That was a great step forward for DRM free content for the web. By making the web standard include a mechnism to include DRM natively, this means content producers o…

The answer after Apple dropped Flash support was for everyone to use native iOS apps. This is not a good thing in any way, shape or form.

Imagine if Netflix, Hulu etc. could have used the browser, complete with Chromecast/Airplay support. It would save us all so much wasted phone storage and app downloads.

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

#200

Post by Certhas »

chii wrote: post #154
kelnos wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We had Flash and Silverlight. and when apple decides to drop flash support, what happened? Did netflix or any other video content producer suddenly decide to stop supporting those devices? No, they went with html5 video (and at that time, free of DRM). That was a great step forward for DRM free content for the web. By making the web standard include a mechnism to include DRM natively, this means content producers o…

Maybe, just _maybe_ that would have been a viable pressure point to favour non-DRM content* if we were all running Firefox.

As it is, too many people decided they are OK with a google browser. The answer to: "It's cumbersome to use DRM" is to tell your consumers to use Chrome.

* I find this highly questionable. We have an abundance of examples of media companies favouring DRM over user experience. Clearly they think a less smooth experience is a price worth paying.

Post reply on HN