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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#141

Post by pedrocr »

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…

>DRM certainly has kept some (power) user-friendly features off the market.

Is watching Netflix at 1080p or more a power user feature? Because currently that's heavily restricted by DRM. Not possible on any open-source operating system, restricted to a few browsers on Mac and Windows. 4K is only enabled on Microsoft Edge and only if you also activate a bunch of hardware DRM features. So I have to watch 720p content on a 1440p screen which is ridiculous.

>But I don't see a lot of evidence that those limitations, if genuinely important to users, can't be competed away.

Amazon Prime imposes similar restrictions and is only slightly better at providing 1080p. Meanwhile piratebay still has more choice with more quality and is the only hope at "competition" to make them change their minds.

We are in a world where picking your devices freely is blocked by Amazon/Netflix and the content providers while at the same time those same companies want us to help them push for net neutrality. Commoditize the industries you depend on and capture the ones that depend on you seems to be the play and we should fight it wherever we can.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#142

Post by bubblethink »

yellowapple wrote: post #111
emodendroket wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which browsers are going on this fork?

If Mozilla has any integrity, then I suspect Firefox might.

What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#143

Post by pdkl95 »

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 works! It's very effective at giving control of the playback environment to the copyright cartels.

Unfortunately, a lot of people mistakenly believe the purpose of DRM is to prevent copying. That is the justification, not the goal, which has always been about maintaining control over playback device.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#144

Post by throwaway613834 »

horsawlarway wrote: post #121
throwaway613834 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> It could be easy to view but hard to save and distribute. Why can't it?

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

You literally just agreed with my point though.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#145

Post by HappyCynic »

yellowapple wrote: post #111
emodendroket wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which browsers are going on this fork?

If Mozilla has any integrity, then I suspect Firefox might.

FireFox included closed-source DRM back in 2014. They've already picked their side.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#146

Post by olivermarks »

Crespyl wrote: post #124
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.

thanks

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#148

Post by tptacek »

yarrel wrote: post #123
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://cr…

I don't know a lot of software security people who work on browser security that agree with this. The prevailing sentiment is the opposite: that standardize DRM reduces the attack surface of proprietary DRM down to that of a CDM, rather than full-featured browser plugins. By doing so, EME is improving security, not damaging it.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#149

Post by bane »

tptacek wrote: post #102
noir_lord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really insane part is that the DRM is pointless anyway, you can go onto any file sharing/streaming site within minutes of a Netflix release dropping and it's there in HD. I still maintain my netflix account 1) because my mum uses it with her Roku and 2) because they should be paid for providing value and good TV. I have the technical skills (like nearly all HN readers I'd imagine) to stream whatever I want with e…

I'm an admirer of well-done DRM technology but I think I agree with the subtext here, which is that DRM doesn't have much of a future. Ironically, the thing that is likely to end DRM is standardized DRM. By making it easier for technology/content companies to deal in premium content, content providers are making it easier to compete with them for their middleman role in funding content.

Standardized DRM also makes it much easier to break and distribute the content. Break it once and you're done. When any vendor can build in whatever kind of DRM they want, it requires a virtual toolkit that can overcome whatever DRM approach the vendor happens to have chosen that day.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#150

Post by breck »

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…

> the alternative isn't simply a world with no such limitations, but also a world with less content made available online.

I don't buy this. Do you have data supporting this claim?

Disclaimer: I am totally biased and think IP laws are morally wrong and a huge regressive tax on the poor.

Post reply on HN