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

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#61

Post by pdonis »

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.

What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone.

Also, your software can be as open source as you like, but if it can't interoperate with the rest of the Internet, it's useless. Personally, I don't watch TV or movies on my computer so I don't particularly care whether my browser lets me do that or not. But I would care very much if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#62

Post by phkahler »

Now is the time to make it possible for individuals to use DRM when they publish videos online. How often do media companies show peoples stuff on TV and such without permission? Of course youtube ToS allow that, but this should all be changed ASAP. When large amounts of content actually come from individuals, it's the individuals rights that need to be protected. When will we see DRM for the masses?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#63

Post by oconnor663 »

Whenever compromise fails, both sides blame the other for refusing to give any ground. Obviously browser vendors have a lot more power than the EFF does, and don't necessarily need to compromise as much to get what they want. But I'm curious, for their part, did the EFF actually offer any compromises in defense of consensus?

Edit: You guys are totally right, I missed it in the original article. Shame on me.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#64

Post by Crespyl »

idbehold wrote: post #11
featherverse wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest not underestimating Mozilla's market influence. It would be possible to create a browser that displays DRM content and ignores DRM. The only thing that content publishers could do is ban that browser. And then it would adapt to disguise itself as other browsers. DRM on the web can only happen if all of the major players (that is, browser publishers) agree to play along. I am very excited about this ne…

So hopefully Firefox will simply display DRM content and ignore any restriction DRM imposes.

EME plugins will use whatever user-hostile platform-specific opaque techniques necessary to communicate with the host OS in their attempt to ensure compliance.

If the browser interferes with them, or the OS can't promise a "secure" chain from plugin-output > display, they can just refuse to stream the content.

You can bet EME plugins will be highly platform specific, and poorly supported, if at all, on platforms that respect their users.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#65

Post by josteink »

gue5t wrote: post #14
MrMid wrote: post #9

Doesn't Firefox block DRM content by default? If they continue to do so, and if Chrome does so, then this shouldn't have much effect. If most peoples browsers block it, apps shouldn't use it.

Chrome has been shipping DRM called "Widevine" for years.

In fact Chrome was the first browser to support HTML DRM. Google enabled this when nobody else did.

Google is absolutely not your friend.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#66

Post by barrkel »

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…

I think you're discounting the opportunity cost here.

In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM, it's seems obvious that sooner or later visual media producers would be forced to the table, to gain access to paying consumers. We could be in a DRM-free world, without the inconveniences of elaborate technical restrictions on pass-through and mutual device compatibility, or black box binary blobs on otherwise open source operating systems.

With a look on TPB, it seems evident that DRM doesn't work to prevent piracy. Any technical means that would be used to download a rate-adaptive video stream and save locally in the absence of DRM would seem to me to be more involved for the end consumer than downloading pirated media directly - so I don't think DRM even works as a speed-bump.

A standards body is a great place to achieve consensus around a negotiating position. I don't think the consensus that was reached was the one that leads to the best final result. The distance between where we are now, and that final result, is the cost of this decision.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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?

It's inherently ineffective because for content to be viewable, information about the DRM is widely spread. Consider Blu-ray. HDCP is a huge hassle for anyone trying to do anything with their video content, and it offers next to no security: Every Blu-ray player, TV, and disc producer has to hold the decryption keys, which means it's trivial for the keys to leak out to the public.

And consider the number of hands a piece of media goes through during the various stages of content production. Movies get stolen from anywhere from postproduction studios to the factories that produce the discs.

Adding a layer of DRM on top of the consumer-facing product does almost nothing to prevent the content from reaching pirate sites. And once they're there, the rest of the distribution problem is easy.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#68

Post by 5ilv3r »

Fej wrote: post #36

On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups want DRM and they will get it. This doesn't mean that we are going to lose all freedom on the Web. It's a step in that direction, certainly, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

It is already very difficult to distribute your own content without subjecting it to some other entity's distribution system, and soon it will be impossible. Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#69

Post by prophesi »

throwaway613834 wrote: post #52
idle_zealot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why can't it?

They've been trying to accomplish this for many years now, to no avail. This is a nontrivial problem.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#70

Post by LeifCarrotson »

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 can't work because the math doesn't distinguish between receiving and decrypting content for a legal purpose like viewing it, and doing the same for an illegal purpose like copying and distributing it. If nothing else, there's the analog hole of recording the screen (which could be done in software).

If it did work, that would be a legitimate reason to include these potentially dangerous, un-inspectable DRM features. But it fundamentally can't, so foisting this security risk on everyone seems misguided.

Post reply on HN