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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#451

Post by jdmichal »

kerkeslager wrote: post #423
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…

Ultimately, I think the failure of the open web runs deeper than that. When I visit, for example, a cookbook website, when I view a recipe, the problem isn't just that the site can run arbitrary scripts on my computer. It's also that I have no control over how that recipe displays because so much of that display is in HTML. I can't pull it into a useful format and store it with all my other recipes because it's in HT…

I'll repost a comment by mcphage on why this doesn't work, in general. TL;DR is that common ontologies sound great but don't work in reality, because it leaves no room for value-added services from individual providers. (Recipes would probably be OK, because there's just not a lot of value-add you can really provide. Or, alternatively, I'm just completely ignorant about how value could be added.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13214134

"""

I'm not sure this goal is very practical, even in the toy example you used (being able to swap data sources for weather forecasts).

If you can use a common vocabulary to access multiple APIs, that requires that all APIs implement the same feature set. Which means getting the API sources to agree on the features to implement, and how to describe them, and stop them from adding any features on that the others don't have. But of course, they'll all be motivated to add their own features, to distinguish themselves from their competition.

And once a API consumer is using a feature that other API producers don't support, then the consumer is locked into that producer, and the whole shared vocabulary is for naught. And of course the API consumers will be looking for additional features, because those translate into features that they can offer to their customers.

Basically, this requires API producers to work together to hobble their ability to meet their customers' needs, all to make it easier for their customers to drop them for a competing endpoint. So it looks like a net negative for everybody.

"""

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#452

Post by dom0 »

jdmichal wrote: post #448
leggomylibro wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I mean, if a site legitimately needs a large amount of dynamic communication back to the server... Fine, whitewall me until I enable your JavaScript. I understand that server-side rendering is basically dead. But it's really frustrating when it's things that could be easily served statically, like blogs.

> I understand that server-side rendering is basically dead.

Server-side rendering is a mature technology, don't measure it's pervasiveness in how often you see articles in the news about it...

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#453

Post by orblivion »

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…

Whether or not there's actual corruption, it's inevitable (in my opinion) that this sort of thing would happen. It's the march of economics. The open web just doesn't allow suppliers to meet demand. One way or another they'll find a way to do it. DRM snuck in the door via Flash. We just about stamped it out, but wouldn't you know it somehow it came back in a more insidious (if innocuous looking) form. People on our side like to claim that DRM is a foolish business model, but I'm not convinced that they're not just deluding themselves.

Whatever the answer is, I don't think it's stopping DRM with brute force. I think it will need to involve either coming up with alternate business models that are anywhere near as viable, or a way to keep it in a box to use for the few applications that really benefit from it.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#454

Post by 4bpp »

MBCook wrote: post #436
4bpp wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Like I said I support better fair use laws as I know that’s a real issue right now. The comparison to deadly force.... seems hyperbolic. No one is in mortal peril. I would have voted you up without that. Those kind of statements make it impossible to have/take discussions like this seriously.

I wasn't meaning to say that the legal prohibition to do something in this case is comparable (similarly bad) to deadly force; rather, I believe the relation between "prohibit DRM" and "use DRM to prohibit exercise of rights" is similar to that between "kill (in self-defense)" and "murder", and it seems accepted that in the kill-murder case, the latter justifies the former even though it would not be justified on its own.

On the other point, I'm not convinced that supporting better fair use laws is enough on its own. An equitable compromise between two parties with fundamentally opposing interests can rarely be reached if there is a deep asymmetry in terms of their ability to just take what they want and run. Maybe, if comparison to anything involving murder is going too far for you, we can instead make one to (ironically enough) stealing: if the local group of school bullies keeps dragging you into dark alleyways and taking your lunch money, will you also support better rights to keep your lunch money but think it is going too far to demand that they be put in detention, because you see a pretty good argument why they should have a right to free movement?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#455

Post by unlmtd1 »

olegkikin wrote: post #434
unlmtd1 wrote: post #421

Good! Let them do that, and let us keep working on things like ipfs, blockchain naming systems, matrix and host identity protocols. The more they try to corrupt the web, the more energy goes into fixing the broken architectures. Then one day, nobody will use the broken DRM net. Politics is a programmer's most wasteful use of his time. Code them out of business.

Unfortunately network effect is HUGE when it comes to the internet. Just because you can code a superior internet, doesn't mean people will move to it en masse.

The end of history? What a ridiculous comment you make! Ahhaah! Listen everyone; we will never evolve our technologies ever again! Because Facebook will prevent it. Ahahahahah! Why don't you jump off the roof? Is your name 'despair'? Gave me a good laugh.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#456

Post by tveita »

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…

> Media companies couldn't give any less fucks about the web.

This is pure bluster. As if they'd just walk away from one of the highest reach distribution platforms and all the money that comes with it just because they were denied a gaping vulnerability surface that provides no benefit for either them or the consumer. Sure, instead of learning the lesson from Spotify they'll just leave pirating as the #1 accessible and convenient method of getting content.

The media companies are coming to the web, DRM or no DRM, but of course it costs them nothing to bluff and claim they will take their ball and go unless they get all the special treatment they want.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#457

Post by MikeGale »

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'm guessing the folk around here include some who can make a browser happen.

If it takes only well formed x/html/5 it's not that big a deal.

Ideally a lot of "hooks" so that the more determined can make it do their thing. Not the thing that somebody else wants to force on them.

I wonder who's game?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#458

Post by colde »

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…

There will be absolutely no change. All major browsers already implement EME (this includes Edge, IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera and a bunch of minor ones).

I personally think it is a step forward, as it is much better than Silverlight. Now all the client behaviour is out in the open, and only the DRM piece is proprietary.

There is no way that removing EME will make things better, that would just require all streaming services to build native clients or browser plugins, which isn't exactly improving any transparency.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#459

Post by syshum »

2trill2spill wrote: post #42
bhhaskin wrote: post #33

We are allowing large corporations to dictate and push the web toward a closed system. A future where there has to be an App for that, and if you don't keep your head down you will be censored and cutoff from the rest of the online world.

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

Is there though?

There are more open source libraries, tools, frameworks, languages and other tools used to create software

But I am seeing a HUGE shift to Closed off, non open SaaS and property installed apps for end users.

Outside of dev tools I am not seeing a shift to open source.

GPL a licence that protects user freedom has fallen out of favor in place of MIT and BSD which protects developer freedom

So like EME, Open Source has become hostile users. Open Source is for dev's not users

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#460

Post by yosito »

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.

Count me in. There will be at least three dozen.
Post reply on HN