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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#171

Post by tannhaeuser »

Touche wrote: post #19
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should simply start doing new standards through other organizations. There's no fundamental reason to float new standards through W3C rather than some other organization.

I'm completely confused why the W3C is relevant at all. This already did happen, the browsers created the WHATWG. Since the browser vendors' opinions are the only ones that matter, why do we care what W3C thinks?

I disagree that browser vendors are the only ones to matter. The web is used for many things, like legal documents between private parties, by the government(s), for education, personal notes, literature/cultural heritage, the entire way we consume and perceive written information in this age. Do you want to leave all that to an ad company? Because that's what you're effectively doing when you give WHATWG this role.

You are of course right that browser developers/vendors get to decide what they're implementing. But web authors, OTOH, can decide which format their works are published in. Browser vendors and WHATWG have shown no interest in simplifying the web. Rather, they're piling up monstrosities of unnecessary complexity, with the effect that, willingly or not, it is becoming infeasible to develop a new browser from scratch.

Most of all, WHATWG seem uncapable to come up with any privacy protection mechanism; instead, we're getting DRM. Honi soit qui mal y pense

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#172

Post by emodendroket »

MBCook wrote: post #130
jacamat wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice but to vote for it, so there's a model.

But yeah, this conversation, talking about how maybe if we ask Google nicely they'll act against their financial interests, strikes me as pretty naive.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#173

Post by rocqua »

mo2k wrote: post #138
gizmo686 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know content creators. There is a large group that hate their content being copied. That's not going to change.

Is it content creators or content distributers?

I thought most pushback against easier access to content was from publishers / curators / distributers. They are being made obsolete by digital distribution and are using 'but the poor artists' as an smoke-screen to delay their obsolescence.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#174

Post by luxuryballs »

benevol wrote: post #95
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…

Capitalism at work - a handful of ultra-rich guys winning even more ground over common folks again.

the market allows the DRM because people keep buying the content even when DRM is included, standardizing it may just mean less clunky implementations of DRM

but if we were to ban DRM from the market would something else crop up to replace it? would content creators stop making content?

what about IP laws? if we got rid of them, there would probably be more content AND more DRM? or would it be more content and less DRM since it would only be a matter of time before someone legally reproduces your work so why bother with DRM?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#176

Post by bigfoot »

richard_mcp wrote: post #117
bigfoot wrote: post #104

The saddest part of this story is that Netflix/Amazon/younameit will continue to ignore and block Linux users as the niche market they are -- even if a future Firefox or Chrome version comes with the new standardized DRM everyone asked for. Lose/lose situation.

Why would they do that? Are you assuming these companies will want to block Linux users out of some random, malicious spite?

But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see your optimism come true here.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#177

Post by wolfgke »

bubblethink wrote: post #142
yellowapple wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place.

This was rather the point of Fall of Men ("Zeitpunkt des Sündenfalls") in Firefox' history to me. It was also the point in time where I stopped donating to them.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#179

Post by bubblethink »

sev wrote: post #82

DRM can't work in theory, but it is working in practice. If someone writes a piece of software that allows downloading of DRM-ed content (without losing quality, and playable anytime) from the big names (Netflix, Amazon, etc), then this battle would be won.

That piece of software already exists, and no it doesn't win any battles. It's not public of course, for the hole would be patched. There's nothing new about this cat and mouse game. It is becoming increasingly difficult though due to increasing involvement of hardware companies. Breaking processor based schemes is a lot harder if not impossible.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#180

Post by alethiophile »

jxcole wrote: post #103
sev wrote: post #82

DRM can't work in theory, but it is working in practice. If someone writes a piece of software that allows downloading of DRM-ed content (without losing quality, and playable anytime) from the big names (Netflix, Amazon, etc), then this battle would be won.

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…

In practice, you'd have techies with the bit between their teeth passing magnet links around, and media companies playing whack-a-mole with anyone who hosts it too visibly. Meanwhile, anyone who makes a modest effort can get a DRM-free pirated copy without trouble, and the 95% of people who don't bother will continue paying for their Netflix subscription.
Post reply on HN