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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#291

Post by MBCook »

wolfgke wrote: post #163
MBCook wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid…

> DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.

Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it?

And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in trouble.

> As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content...

Far too many people see nothing wrong with piracy. It works on music because it’s so cheap. I don’t think you’ll get 99c TV shows or especially movies any time soon. It probably isn’t sustainable, especially for movies.

So people will pirate, out of cheapness or inability to pay or ‘righteousness’ or whatever.

It’s not going to happen.

> ... I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.

Why should they, from a business perspective, give up control they have now with basically no downside? I don’t even see a moral argument they should give it up.

Now I agree we need better fair use laws, and security people should be able to poke at DRM to make sure it’s not doing evil things. But I don’t see why society, under moral or business obligations, could support outlawing DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#292

Post by nebabyte »

matchagaucho wrote: post #214
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…

One day HackerNews is chastising W3C for not adding encryption to the Payment Request API. The next day HN is lamenting about a standard encryption API being defined.

"guiiise, it's just encryption!"

Try harder. Maybe go with a "for the children" or anti-terrorism tack.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#293

Post by tareqak »

Touche wrote: post #29
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's not harmful to them. I suggest reading this if you haven't already: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2

Thanks for that! From my reading of the end, it seems to me that there is inherent conflict of interest in being a content-licensee and a browser-maker with respect to DRM e.g. an analogy that builds on foxes guarding the hen house.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#294

Post by bad_user »

The EFF is right for resigning. There's no reason for EFF to be part of a supposed standardization group that is ignoring complaints, especially for a recommendation for a technology that puts freedoms at risk.

And to put salt on injury, the W3C is claiming that they couldn't reach consensus on a covenant regarding anti-circumvention regulations, however they are now making this recommendation without consensus, which seems to me to be disingenuous.

The W3C is clearly and has always been a charade.

And people won't forget that easily, just like we haven't forgotten the days when they were holding the web back. So if they were worried about becoming irrelevant by not adopting DRM, well, they just became irrelevant regardless. Might as well admit that the standards are made by two or three companies which control the market and stop this circus.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#295

Post by dTal »

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 Firefox if it doesn't have integrity?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#296

Post by nebabyte »

pdimitar wrote: post #246

It's time to abandon the major web standards and start devising our own infrastructure. Better stateless protocol, end-to-end encryption on every connection -- no exceptions! -- decentralized encrypted vaults of cached assets (where every user donates a few or few hundred gigabytes of disk space to participiate -- effectively becoming a node in a decentralized CDN). We've left the corporations run wild for far too lo…

The time for that was long past.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#297

Post by sp332 »

wolfgke wrote: post #237
xeromal wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. Sometimes it's wise to retreat or lose a battle to stay in the fight.

> If they didn't fold, they'd just lose more users to other browsers. They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.

They make EME-free builds. e.g. http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/55.0/

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#298

Post by hughw »

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.

W3C is not the web. Check out the history and motivation behind WHATWG. They led on HTML5, then W3C followed.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#299

Post by wolfgke »

jayshua wrote: post #280
wolfgke wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no option I have to opt in whether I want a malware interface (EME) installed in my browser or not.

What makes EME a malware interface?

DRM is malware (I don't seriously believe I have to explain why) - so EME is a malware interface.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#300

Post by matchagaucho »

nebabyte wrote: post #292
matchagaucho wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One day HackerNews is chastising W3C for not adding encryption to the Payment Request API. The next day HN is lamenting about a standard encryption API being defined.

"guiiise, it's just encryption!" Try harder. Maybe go with a "for the children" or anti-terrorism tack.

Or maybe try paying for the content you consume.

The "free ride" Internet is over.

Post reply on HN