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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#341

Post by AOsborn »

mozumder wrote: post #312
5_minutes wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing…

DRM is also how you get media companies to publish on the web. Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. This whole process of enabling DRM is web developer's efforts to kiss media-companies ass in order for them to publish their products on the web. Artists and other creatives…

> They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with.

I accept your logic but disagree with your premise. Online media is the future, and any media company knows this.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#342

Post by Sargos »

syshum wrote: post #318
Sargos wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true. EME exists -because- we started getting rid of Flash, Java, Silverlight etc due to their security issues. There needed to be something to replace those proprietary plugins or else some of the largest websites on the internet would just break with no way to fix them. EME is the standardized version of the needed functionality from those obsolete plugins.

I dont think that is true. EME exists because media companies have the strange desire to treat their customers like criminals and Technology companies have the desire to ensure the user can not control the devices they "buy" from them. EME is about control and limiting freedom, not about replacing Flash

What I said is technically true. You are simply talking about conspiracy theories and politics.

TV/Movie producers have a legitimate reason to want to protect their media. The lower the bar is for viewing the content they spend lots of money and work producing for free the more people do it. If there were no barriers to viewing movies then there are zero ways in our current economy to get a positive return. You can't fund Wonder Woman on money from advertisements. There needs to be a system where people pay for content.

EME is a means to an end. It's not inherently evil. If someone takes it and uses it for an evil purpose then we might have something to discuss, but today there is no way for our modern media to exist in a fully open source world. If EME didn't exist then we would still be using plugins to view Netflix. There is no situation where Netflix can operate in a fully open source system. And that's not a bad thing.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#343

Post by favorited »

wakamoleguy wrote: post #317
favorited wrote: post #81

For the record, the EFF only joined the W3C to fight EME in the first place. They're not resigning in protest, they're leaving the group because they didn't win the single battle they joined for the purpose of fighting.

Do you have a source for that? The latest article that references the W3C on their site already shows them as a member, and it appears that they were heavily involved in Do Not Track work before EME. Did they post something somewhere when they were joining? edit: The reply below has the link. Thank you!

> So last week, EFF increased its involvement in the W3C from being a regular participant and invited expert to a full member, to challenge DRM in the group's future work

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-dr...

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#345

Post by wakamoleguy »

zymhan wrote: post #271
DCKing wrote: post #241

Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM has been part of content delivery ever since then. It has not ever seem to have decreased in popularity, quite the opposite. The browsers that 99.9% of people use have already implemented this standard for years anyway. It's not obvious to me that this decision…

RealPlayer was not a Web Standard like EME is. This decision codifies DRM in Web rendering standards.

If DRM has already existed for years, and the majority of browsers have already accepted EME as a de facto standard by implementing it, wouldn't codifying that standard be positive?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#346

Post by thatzerodude »

mozumder wrote: post #312
5_minutes wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing…

DRM is also how you get media companies to publish on the web. Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. This whole process of enabling DRM is web developer's efforts to kiss media-companies ass in order for them to publish their products on the web. Artists and other creatives…

> No one gives a shit about freedom. Everyone wants to use rights-managed content online. And the ONLY way to do that is with DRM.

Finally a shill who speaks the truth! /s

DRM will destroy the web, and the web will fight back. We don't like your spyware, your binary blobs, your control, and we will resist. However, drastic times call for drastic measures. Time to join p2p ZeroNet.io and force decentralization of the web.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#347

Post by jgust »

mozumder wrote: post #312
5_minutes wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing…

DRM is also how you get media companies to publish on the web. Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web. They can go 100 years without publishing on the web, since they have other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with. This whole process of enabling DRM is web developer's efforts to kiss media-companies ass in order for them to publish their products on the web. Artists and other creatives…

> The web needs these media companies more than the media companies need the web

When you hear about the multi-billion dollar fines and the immense amount of resources spent chasing down and punishing pirates, I have a hard time following this argument. I'd argue that the content owners and media companies need to get on board with providing the most seamless, easy to use, and accessible product for consuming their wares or this

> other revenue paths that they're perfectly happy with

won't continue to exist.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#348

Post by Oxxide »

5_minutes wrote: post #265
throwaway34241 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence or reason to believe there is actual corruption on the committee (aside from them making a decision you disagree with)? I suspect I agree with you on DRM but this style of debate, where there is no attempt to argue or explain the issue, and the first line of argument is personal attacks or denigrating anyone with an opposing viewpoint, is depressing. Consider that accusing climate scientists…

"In 2013, EFF was disappointed to learn that the W3C had taken on the project of standardizing “Encrypted Media Extensions,” an API whose sole function was to provide a first-class role for DRM within the Web browser ecosystem" With so much money involved here, it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. And: "It is clear that the W3C allowing…

The fun thing about DRM, is that people love to defeat it.

They (the general public AND 3DM, to TorrentFreak, bunch of whiners IMO) said Denuvo was the death of cracking and piracy. 3DM: No games crackable in 2 years time, said the headline.

now the cracking scene, which was mostly dying, has seen some revival.

It has adapted, but it's a slow moving ship.

Now a new generation (or the older generation, who knows, I'm just relaying my own observations)) are taking everything being thrown at them: encryption, virtualization, obfuscation, changing keys each patch, etc and making it look like light work to crack properly.

They make short, short work of it for the amount of complexity involved. So I hope they continue to throw new things at them with Denuvo, to keep them interested.

One group cracks the base game, sometimes someone else grabs all the updates and rolls them into a cracked patch, etc.

It's nice to see some life return to something that was basically dead, made automated.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#349

Post by mabynogy »

ashark wrote: post #327
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…

If someone launches a new HTML-based Web with crippled javascript ( no network comm access, for one, including ability to trigger links or forms), some small, restricted subset of CSS, and much better built-in dynamic table and form elements, I'm there . This Web's about to be eaten by DRM and WebAssembly anyway. Pretty soon it'll just be a way to deliver QT apps (or some other framework that runs in WebAssembly and…

> If someone launches a new HTML-based Web

Few alternatives already exist (like gopher, the protocol).

I found a new interesting one recently (ala markdown but tab-based and parseable with regexps):

https://contnet.org/

There is also a new browser that is being developped (not related to ContNet):

https://netrunner.cc/

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#350

Post by digital_trench »

is71515124 wrote: post #269
nebabyte wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I'm far more interested in which developing or first-world locales, if any, exist where net freedoms like these are protected by the majority, rather than having to be fought for by the minority against a wave of complacency and apathy. I'm pretty much done with trying to fight the american capitalist ideology which empowers these companies to steamroll over the average consumer happy to give up their own rig…

> the extortionist environments that leads to. Media delivery in 2017 is hardly an extortionary environment. Practically speaking, Americans spend very little of their income on the Audible/Netflix/HBO Gos of the world. Netflix costs $120 a year? Against a median household income of $55,000, that is next to nothing. If anything, it's the opposite: there's a glut of content available to consume, in nearly every possib…

It's not about the content available. It's about the control.
Post reply on HN