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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#411

Post by sp4ke »

ashark wrote: post #368
EGreg wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? Perhaps you are right, but how do you make the leap from "W3C standardizes DRM" and "the Web is about to be eaten by DRM?" The Web is used for so many things these days. It is a publishing platform that allows anyone to host their own content to the entire internet, thanks to Web Browsers just loading it. I can see IPFS being an improvement over the Web but besides the web server being a single point of f…

DRM and webassembly. The end of openness in both cases—though at least WebAssembly means we eventually won't have to write Javascript anymore, which is nice as far as that goes. Sure, Javascript uglifiers and frameworks mucking with HTML standards and the DOM had already made "view source" nigh-worthless, and there were DRM'd plugins of course, and browsers had supported some schemes for a while as a de facto standar…

Bookmarking this page in hope of having some alternatives. I'm even ready to throw some money/programming hours to any serious projects

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#412

Post by Veedrac »

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…

> the decision being made is between EME and Adobe Flash

Flash is a mix of dying and dead, mostly the latter. Having to use Flash is a strong economic and practical motivation not to use DRM, and if that wasn't the case there wouldn't be so much pressure to implement something in the browser itself.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#413

Post by AnthonyMouse »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #398
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #392

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. 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.

And then DRMed content will be properly separated off into its miserable DRM slum that everyone hates, the cost of using it will be higher, users will complain more, companies who don't use DRM will capture more of the market, etc.

That's the entire point.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#414

Post by throwaway613834 »

prophesi wrote: post #304
throwaway613834 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and foremost that depends on the content being popular. For example there's a ~30-minute video I paid for on Amazon Videos that I would love to have a copy of so that I don't need an Amazon account and internet access just to play the video, but I can't. Why? Because of their DRM and the fact that I can't find it anywhere else. (Admittedly I haven't directly searched on piracy sites since I'm not into that sort…

Just run a screen recorder next time you're online. (Trivial) Problem solved.

Yeah, but that doesn't give me a "copy". It will lose quality (and I expect frames as well), and it requires letting the computer run through the entire movie at normal playback speed, which I haven't gotten around to doing. Again, it's been enough of a deterrent for me to do this, which is my bigger point. I never said it's 100% foolproof, just hard enough to be a deterrent.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#415

Post by leggomylibro »

anonacct37 wrote: post #358
ashark wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Me too. There will be dozens of us.

I already use noscript, but most people won't like having to hit 'temporarily allow' and reloading the page 1-3 times before most sites will function. Also, sites that lean heavily on trendy frameworks like fucking React often just white-screen because of their extreme reliance on JS. I'm hugely against its adoption for that reason, but I understand that I'm in the minority there.

I dunno, it just seems like common sense at this point. Javascript is a powerful attack vector, like ads. And many people already use adblockers in some capacity, for that kind of reason.

It'll definitely suck as HTML5's various peripheral features become strong and widely-used attack vectors.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#418

Post by 4bpp »

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…

> 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?

The current state of affairs is that it's not just legal to use DRM, it's illegal (DMCA) to try and break a DRM scheme, _even if you do so in order to exercise your legally guaranteed fair use rights_.

It seems to me that there should be some sort of sort of moral right to self-defense that applies here: just like society/the law recognises that it is morally acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself from someone who is trying to murder you (even if it wouldn't be otherwise), we can recognise that it is morally acceptable to use the legal equivalent of deadly force (ban DRM, make it illegal for them to enforce their right to protect their content) in self-defense (against them using DRM to make it illegal for you to enforce your right to fair use).

More bluntly: Content creators, with their support of the DMCA, have proven that they have no concern for my rights or freedoms. What standing do they have to expect me to have any for theirs?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#419

Post by woodrowbarlow »

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…

I think you're too quick to put DRM and WebAssembly in the same bucket. Yes, WebAssembly could lead to a future of closed-source proprietary technology on the web (and in that sense is similar to DRM), but the difference is that WebAssembly offers technical value. WebAssembly is a tradeoff for the public, whereas DRM exists strictly to restrict the public.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#420

Post by mozumder »

jgust wrote: post #347
mozumder wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Do us a favor and actually think your cunning plan through for a minute.

Why should content owners post their products for free consumption? What is the incentive for them to do that? How much money do you think they will make?

In case you haven't noticed, the web is losing to apps at every level, from things like Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat to shopping apps. Even newsreaders are being turned into apps. My parents only use the Apple newsreader, for example.

Do normal people even use the web anymore? It seems the web is only used by tech developers.

Such a sad loss for the web..

Post reply on HN