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

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#151

Post by wolfgke »

epistasis wrote: post #110
wolfgke wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's going to happen without a standard? A bunch of proprietary plugins? What is supposed to be happen is a zero-tolerance and active fightback against anything DRM-related in the web - be it in the browser or be it a plugin.

That's a big shift from historical standards. Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? Or from allowing them in, say Firefox? I'm wondering why this proposal gets so much more attention than all the past DRM that's been on the web. Did people just not realize that it was there?

> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM?

I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight.

* OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any application which used it and I don't know anybody who used any application where Flash DRM was used. So the statement still holds.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#152

Post by yellowapple »

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?

If you're capable of actually consuming it (by seeing it with your eyes and/or hearing it with your ears), then it is possible to pirate it. Exactly zero DRM technologies today actually prevent piracy, and exactly zero DRM technologies ever will.

Meanwhile, user-hostile DRM can and will (and already does) push users to simply pirate the media in question instead of putting up with the DRM. Users lose, publishers lose, browser vendors lose, and pirates are entirely unaffected.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#153

Post by dannyobrien »

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.

We offered to open a discussion about a covenant, modelled on the W3C's own patent covenant, that would mean that W3C members would agree to only prosecute those who had broken the DRM within a W3C standard, if they had another cause of action. That's to say, those companies could prosecute you if you broke the DRM and used it infringe copyright, but not if you only broke the DRM for lawful purposes -- such as security research, for accessibility, to protect privacy, and so on.

There was a sizeable component within the W3C (I am still unsure as to what degree I can reveal how much, given that the W3C holds members to a confidentiality agreement.) who felt this was an important step to take before making EME a standard. In the end, the W3C executive team overrode those objections, and decided to go ahead without any such covenant.

You can now for the first time be prosecuted for revealing a flaw in a W3C standard, overriding a browser "feature" on behalf of its user, or making a HTML video accessible without first asking permission of the DRM vendor who obfuscated it.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#154

Post by mccr8 »

coldtea wrote: post #37
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…

> The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to try to exclude DRM is Mozilla Didn't Spotify just abandon Safari (OS X) because unlike Mozilla it doesn't support the DRM they need?

Safari supports DRM, it just uses FairPlay instead of Widevine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#155

Post by emodendroket »

wolfgke wrote: post #151
epistasis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big shift from historical standards. Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? Or from allowing them in, say Firefox? I'm wondering why this proposal gets so much more attention than all the past DRM that's been on the web. Did people just not realize that it was there?

> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight. * OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any…

It took the iPhone to kill Flash and even then not having it was one of the biggest complaints about the phone. And they killed it for reasons having nothing to do with DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#156

Post by smsm42 »

noir_lord wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 remember I has signed up for Audible - and was completely prepared to pay their subscription fees, despite a lot of content being available on pirate sites for $0. But I am old enough to value my time and pay reasonable fee for just mere convenience. And also it's the right thing to do, right?

Turned out, however, that I could not play this content on most of my devices, because it was DRMed into something awful, despite being regular sound files that anything can play underneath, and those devices did not support it.

So, I did two things: a) I downloaded the DRMed files that I had on my subscription, and spent an hour (probably should have taken less, but I have never done it before) on extracting regular MP3s from them and b) I cancelled my Audible subscription. So DRM wasn't just pointless to me, it was bad for both myself and Audible (I started with thinking they are awesome and now I low-key despise them).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#157

Post by craftyguy »

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.

> but it feels like not having the EFF on the committee at all is going to do more harm than good.

Well, having them on the committee did no good. I fully support the EFF's decision to jump out of that septic ship, and have shown my support by making a donation this afternoon to thank them.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#158

Post by nebabyte »

CJefferson wrote: post #101
wolfgke wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.

No, the W3C is the web. You'd be forking to what? This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.

> No, the W3C is the web.

"L'etat, c'est moi" - until a new state comes to power.

The web is its users.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#159

Post by yellowapple »

literallycancer wrote: post #132
jxcole wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not by a long shot. Where would you put this solution once you found it? Github? Npm? Of course corporations will sue these organizations out of existence for hosting a DRM work around, so they won't be able to host it. So at the end unless you can find some cool Russian hosting (a la sci-hub) you are straight out of luck. The real problem is not creating a solution, but finding somewhere to put it that people can ac…

Host it on the blockchain :)

Aaaand now billions of dollars are DMCA'd out of existence ;)

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#160

Post by rocqua »

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)…

I think the most untenable part of the DRM model is the trust required. All user hardware behind the visual part has to be secure. That is, the manufacturer has to correctly implement any protocols.

This goes (if I'm not mistaken) for the Screen, HDMI cable, GPU and OS. It's a hard balance between keeping consumer happy with their choice and only accepting compliant and capable producers.

The downfall of the DRM is either going to be stripping the legal protections, or competitors without DRM being able to offer a better experience. Sadly, whilst cutting DRM gives a massively better experience, it comes at the cost of control over the customer. I think Netflix really doesn't mind that I can't watch Netflix on Plex. Heck, they might even prefer that.

This is what really scares me about DRM, it enables the building of walled gardens for much more than just media content.

Post reply on HN