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

W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#51

Post by squeaky-clean »

cromulen wrote: post #31

I'm a bit uneducated when it comes to the cryptography involved, but I'm wondering why people here are so determined DRM can't ever work? Is it because someone will somehow get a copy and upload to torrents/streaming sites which of course won't have DRM. Thus only potentially annoying legitimate (eg. Netflix) users? Or are there other concerns?

Mainly that. There's no way to show me a video in my own home wherein I can't simply videotape the screen. So even if it's perfectly locked down digitally, it has to be converted to analog at some point for human consumption, and you can always capture that.

But I also disagree that DRM should be baked into "the web" as a standard, especially when most users seem to disagree, the EFF disagrees, and almost half of the committee disagrees.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#52

Post by throwaway613834 »

idle_zealot wrote: post #45
cromulen wrote: post #31

I'm a bit uneducated when it comes to the cryptography involved, but I'm wondering why people here are so determined DRM can't ever work? Is it because someone will somehow get a copy and upload to torrents/streaming sites which of course won't have DRM. Thus only potentially annoying legitimate (eg. Netflix) users? Or are there other concerns?

By its very nature DRM of media content makes no sense. How can audio and video be delivered to the user without also allowing the user to save and distribute that content later? At some point, the content must be available in unencrypted form, even if that point is when the content is sent to the display, it can just be captured there.

It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it? Or do you really think these people have no idea what they're taking about?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#53

Post by saganus »

tptacek wrote: post #28
jandrese wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really the issue. If we could convince media rightsholders that DRM is harmful and unnecessary then all of this heartache wouldn't be necessary. I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime. Any slight glimmer of hope from Apple ditching DRM on iTunes has died as nobody else shows the slightest interest in following their lead.

It seems self-evidently unharmful, in that we appear to be in a golden era of delivering content online so extraordinary that it threatens traditional television networks. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular sentiment on HN, but here goes: at least with respect to video content, the industry seems to have largely proven DRM concerns unfounded. Update: modulo the Hickson concerns below. Continuing: DRM ce…

Maybe the harm will be realized in the long run, when you want to watch something that is no longer available?

For example, the Netflix library changes every now and then (at least that I've been able to detect), and there's more than one show that I can no longer watch anymore that I wish I could.

That to me is harmful because I don't really know when this happens until I search for it and it's no longer there. So I end up buying DVDs of shows/movies I really would like to re-watch in the future just so I can avoid Netflix's listing changes.

I guess the argument is that if there were no DRM I could download those shows I like the most and watch them at anytime, regardless of whether Netflix wants me to or not.

Not sure about the reasons for others to consider DRM harmful (or not), but this one to me is really important and would love to have a DRM-free alternative besides pirating (due to inconvenience mainly, and due to general concern for downloading stuff that might not be what it supposedly should be).

However this looks like wishful thinking at best, as time goes by and DRM is pushed further.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#54

Post by Fej »

cromulen wrote: post #31

I'm a bit uneducated when it comes to the cryptography involved, but I'm wondering why people here are so determined DRM can't ever work? Is it because someone will somehow get a copy and upload to torrents/streaming sites which of course won't have DRM. Thus only potentially annoying legitimate (eg. Netflix) users? Or are there other concerns?

DRM doesn't work. Every form of DRM has historically been broken in one way or another. There are a couple of current systems that haven't been broken yet but it doesn't matter; content will be available from unauthorized sources the day they are released for streaming and no technical means is going to stop that.

Even Denuvo, the darling of the major games publishers, is broken on a regular basis. The company acknowledges that their software doesn't last forever (they tout '300 days' on their website as the longest any of their DRM schemes has held up, it usually is broken in a couple of weeks) and that the value is protecting the profits during that period.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#55

Post by dmoy »

yahna wrote: post #26
donatj wrote: post #2

So this is how the open web dies. Can we fork the W3C into a non-corporate puppet now?

Will it matter? Any organization created to manage web standards is going to be dependent on browser vendors. Google/Microsoft/Apple want DRM so we get DRM.

I would posit that RIAA/MPAA/etc want DRM, and won't consent to Google/Microsoft/Apple opening up access to content without it, so we get DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#57

Post by throwaway613834 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #49
cromulen wrote: post #31

I'm a bit uneducated when it comes to the cryptography involved, but I'm wondering why people here are so determined DRM can't ever work? Is it because someone will somehow get a copy and upload to torrents/streaming sites which of course won't have DRM. Thus only potentially annoying legitimate (eg. Netflix) users? Or are there other concerns?

Cryptogtaphically speaking, what is DRM. We want to give an untrusted user access to content, so that they can see it, without giving them access to the content, so they cannot copy it. This is simply impossible in theory. In practice, we can make copying it difficult, possibly resorting to hardware support (so decryption happens in the monitor) and rely on the DMCA to make any attempts to break DRM illegal. Of cours…

> Cryptogtaphically speaking,

Honestly, this might be why people aren't on the same wavelength. They're not cryptographically speaking.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#59

Post by 5ilv3r »

2trill2spill wrote: post #42
bhhaskin wrote: post #33

We are allowing large corporations to dictate and push the web toward a closed system. A future where there has to be an App for that, and if you don't keep your head down you will be censored and cutoff from the rest of the online world.

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

We have a quality problem, even it there is ample quantity.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#60

Post by ethanwillis »

2trill2spill wrote: post #42
bhhaskin wrote: post #33

We are allowing large corporations to dictate and push the web toward a closed system. A future where there has to be an App for that, and if you don't keep your head down you will be censored and cutoff from the rest of the online world.

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

Developers are using open source. End users not so much, except open source bundled into their apps as libraries to actually power them.

Getting an app into users hands nowadays is becoming gatekeeped more and more. Either through fearmongering (buy those certs for your apps approved by Gatekeeper X) or literal gatekeeping on app stores.

You can argue that people don't have to use locked down app stores, but then you're just missing the point.

Post reply on HN