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

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#121

Post by horsawlarway »

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?

Not really. If it's available to view, it's available. Full stop.

There's no way around that. You can't magically change the universe so that content that's viewed can't be captured. It HAS to be converted to analog somewhere. That signal can always be captured and converted back to a digital form that's no longer embedded with DRM.

Best case: you make it marginally more difficult for a mom&pop computer user to copy your content. Anyone with a lick of understanding and 100 dollars to buy some hardware will be able to get it without any problem.

Worst case: you introduce all sorts of unnecessary security holes with poorly written software, that can't be audited (legally speaking), and does absolutely nothing to slow the availability of the content online and for free.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#122

Post by ascagnel_ »

tptacek wrote: post #78
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?

In practical terms, DRM obviously can be made to work. People ideologically opposed to DRM tend to have two blind spots about the DRM service model. First, they assume that DRM users demand that DRM prevent any copies being made. But that's not true: obviously, any video you show a user in the privacy of their home can be cam-copied. It has even been the case (though it will be less and less the case moving forward)…

One other element: over the longer term, the scheme should be difficult enough to work around such that casual copying is discouraged.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#123

Post by yarrel »

tptacek wrote: post #78
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?

In practical terms, DRM obviously can be made to work. People ideologically opposed to DRM tend to have two blind spots about the DRM service model. First, they assume that DRM users demand that DRM prevent any copies being made. But that's not true: obviously, any video you show a user in the privacy of their home can be cam-copied. It has even been the case (though it will be less and less the case moving forward)…

People who are not fooled by the ideology of DRM are fully aware that DRM is a legal strategy, not a technology.

That doesn't change the technological harm of DRM. Putting a DRM-shaped hole in web standards makes browsers less secure, less stable, and less maintainable.

iTunes copy protection used to be broken in a few hours, Blu Ray is long since cracked. DRM is neither secure nor cryptographically sound ( http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt ). The business models that work online keep on being built without DRM.

But DRM remains an irresistible fantasy for corporations who haven't worked out the economics of getting Apple, Amazon or Netflix to add locks to their content.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#124

Post by Crespyl »

olivermarks wrote: post #47

where does this leave Brave and Opera, two browsers I use regularly?

I understand them both to be based on Chromium at this point. Chrome already has support, so if the Brave/Opera browsers want it it's pretty much just a flip of the switch (Opera may already have it, I think).

Basically if your browser lists any kind of Content Decryption Module (usually something called Widevine) among its plugins, you have EME support.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#125

Post by whipoodle »

lewisinc wrote: post #116

What benefit is there in the EFF resigning? I'm not educated on the issue as well as those on the committee, but it feels like not having the EFF on the committee at all is going to do more harm than good.

Not everyone thinks in utilitarian terms. And, maybe the EFF thinks the W3C is now an organization focused on legitimizing whatever big tech companies say. If so, they'd probably not want to be considered a part of that process.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#126

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #91
barrkel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I see how that gets us to a DRM-free world, but not so much why ordinary consumers would care. To a first approximation, no ordinary consumer uses TPB. Unauthorized copies are less convenient (especially since mainstream playback devices won't play them) and frequently of lower quality. The price point for legitimate copies is low enough that the purchase decision isn't that hard. A standards body is a great place to…

[deleted]

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#127

Post by syshum »

emodendroket wrote: post #74
sboselli wrote: post #38

Shame, shame, shame. We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. I've seen people and posts here and there calling for attention on these issues, but imho it's all too subtle. We should start using harsher terminology for what's actually happening. This is flat out CORRUPTION, and I'm not seeing anyone express it as such. It's probably too late already, and unfortunately, this is merely a ref…

What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins?

Umm that is what is happening WITH the standard

I still can not believe the number of people that do not understand what EME is

EME enabled Properiertary Plugins, it gives control over the web to MS, Google, and Adobe. Full Stop.

They will control everything.

Widevine, Adobe CDM, and MS PlayReady. Those are your proprietary EME plugins that everyone must use now

Welcome to the non-open Web

Thanks Tim berners-lee, good job

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#128

Post by ascagnel_ »

5ilv3r wrote: post #68
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.

> Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.

I'm going to need some citations that this is even remotely in the plan (and requiring HTTPS isn't the same as refusing to load unsigned content, since that's on the transport level).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#129

Post by zopa »

oconnor663 wrote: post #63

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.

The link at the top tells you all about the EFF's comprimise proposal.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#130

Post by MBCook »

jacamat wrote: post #106
emodendroket wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really expect companies like Google, Microsoft, or Apple to take up that mantle -- why would they, when it's not in their interests? If you actually want to fix the problem you probably need to hit the regulatory levers.

How is it not in their interests?

It’s actively against their interests.

Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM.

So the browser companies support it.

It’s not manditory, you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online.

If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.

Post reply on HN