W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns • Hacker News Board

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#391

Post by ori_b » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

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.

Why? The web seemed to be doing perfectly well without them. Maybe the profit margins of concerns like Youtube and Netflix need them.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#392

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

cbhl wrote: post #314

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…

A lot of people think that the battle here is EME versus DRM-free content, but that's not the case. You can still have all the DRM-free content you want, whether that's YouTube videos or iTunes MP3s. Really, the decision being made is between EME and Adobe Flash. Flash was the one cross-platform way to serve DRMed content before EME. And now that EME is ratified, Adobe, Microsoft, Google and Mozilla can all work toge…

> A lot of people think that the battle here is EME versus DRM-free content, but that's not the case.

Yes it is.

Suppose that in order to play DRMed content, the user was required to be staked to the ground and covered in angry fire ants. Nobody would be willing to do that, so people who use DRM would have no customers, so everyone would stop using DRM.

EME is in the opposite direction from this, so it will cause more DRM and less DRM-free content.

Adobe Flash has been slowly dying for years, which is not a problem.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#393

Post by alexnewman » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

I wish I could talk about how bad widevine is but I can't because NDA. Y'all fucked

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#394

Post by pslam » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #267

"This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the Clear Key system is required to be implemented as a common baseli…

"This device is not part of A Bomb. Rather, it implements a common wiring and chemical mixture function that may be used to ignite, and rapidly interact with the surrounding environment. Implementation of A Bomb is not required for use of this device: only the Joke Bang Sign is required to be implemented as a common baseline."

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#395

Post by MBCook » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #291

wolfgke wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Well that comment went as well as I expected. Can someone give a good argument why someone shouldn’t be able to use DRM to protect their content?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#396

Post by yellowapple » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #295

bubblethink wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. The whole point of Firefox is to be the browser that actually protects its users. If I wanted DRM shoved down my throat, I'd be using Chrome.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#397

Post by 2trill2spill » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:21 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #61

2trill2spill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone. Also, your software can be as open source as you like, but if it can't interoperate with the rest of the Internet, i…

> What's important is not what software exists somewhere where somebody could theoretically download and use it, but what software actually gets used. Most users don't even know what open source software is, much less where to find any; they use what comes with either Windows or OS X or their smartphone.

The people who care about the "Open Web" and DRM know about open source software and the people who don't care, don't know about Open Source software precisely because they don't care.

> if, for example, my bank's website started requiring a DRM-capable browser. Open source doesn't address that problem.

That's the banks property (website, servers, etc) you have no say in how they run it, if they go and do something stupid like require DRM to visit their site and you don't want DRM you have to switch banks. You made the choice to not use DRM, so you have to face the consequences of your choice. The bank made the choice of requiring DRM and they have to live with the consequences of customers switching banks. Open Source software was never meant to control others property.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#398

Post by matthewmacleod » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #392

cbhl wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think that the battle here is EME versus DRM-free content, but that's not the case. You can still have all the DRM-free content you want, whether that's YouTube videos or iTunes MP3s. Really, the decision being made is between EME and Adobe Flash. Flash was the one cross-platform way to serve DRMed content before EME. And now that EME is ratified, Adobe, Microsoft, Google and Mozilla can all work toge…

> A lot of people think that the battle here is EME versus DRM-free content, but that's not the case. Yes it is. Suppose that in order to play DRMed content, the user was required to be staked to the ground and covered in angry fire ants. Nobody would be willing to do that, so people who use DRM would have no customers, so everyone would stop using DRM. EME is in the opposite direction from this, so it will cause mor…

That's just wishful thinking, I fear.

In reality, all that will happen is that users will continue to be forced into using native applications where DRM can be enforced arbitrarily by whatever service they are trying to use.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#399

Post by 2trill2spill » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:25 PM UTC

5ilv3r wrote: post #59

2trill2spill wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hogwash, there is more open source software now then ever before.

We have a quality problem, even it there is ample quantity.

Most software, open or closed has quality issues, so while I think your right, I also think that's a separate conversation.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#400

Post by icebraining » Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 10:26 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #62

Now is the time to make it possible for individuals to use DRM when they publish videos online. How often do media companies show peoples stuff on TV and such without permission? Of course youtube ToS allow that, but this should all be changed ASAP. When large amounts of content actually come from individuals, it's the individuals rights that need to be protected. When will we see DRM for the masses?

Of course youtube ToS allow that

As far as I understand it, not really. You only grant them a license to use your video in the Service or for promoting it. Plus you cancel any rights by deleting the video.

Some cases fall under Fair Use, but it's my belief that unless they request permission from the video author(s), those media companies are infringing their copyright. But we all know these laws are just for the rich - who can afford to sue them anyway?