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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#511

Post by betterunix2 »

phailhaus wrote: post #441
thatzerodude wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Your average web user has no idea what those words mean, and all they care about is being able to consume content unimpeded. They can't tell how it's implemented. Your decentralized web is not user friendly, and it will not gain mainstream adoption until it is.

1995 called and wants its falsehoods back...

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#512

Post by lern_too_spel »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #476
lern_too_spel wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can point to one example of a website that implements DRM that otherwise wouldn't have, I'll buy this argument. On the other side, I can point to many websites that removed Flash/Silverlight/other security nightmare plugins after implementing EME.

> If you can point to one example of a website that implements DRM that otherwise wouldn't have, I'll buy this argument. The argument that some companies will avoid things their customers hate seems illogical, but you'll believe me if I provide an anecdote? > On the other side, I can point to many websites that removed Flash/Silverlight/other security nightmare plugins after implementing EME. Which is irrelevant beca…

The argument is that nobody will go out of their way to implement DRM unless they are contractually obliged. As preposterous as your scenario sounds to me, I will grant you the argument if you can find a website that goes through the trouble to do it even though they don't have to. Note that this isn't an "anecdote" but a counterexample that disproves my proposition.

> Which is irrelevant because it has had a long known solution

Your "solution" is not a solution for 99.99% of web users, and it isn't a solution for the remaining .01% who have to deal with botnets created from the other 99.99%.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#513

Post by zizek23 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #462
zizek23 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is playing a double game of pretending to be on the users side while completely being in Google's pocket. For Google this ensures they cannot be accused of being a monopoly. And those working for Google attempting to divert attention to Hollywood are symptomatic of the reality distortion field and self deception of SV. Google is a spyware company engaged in mass surveillance and creepily following everyone on…

Mozilla is not funded by Google anymore, and hasn't been for several years (the Google contract ended back when I was still working at Mozilla). If you're interested, I wrote up some notes/thoughts from my experience in one of the sessions about EME and whether to implement it: http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2013/oct/16/eme/

That deal may be over but Mozilla still gets money from Google for search. Why is user advocacy so low key and half hearted, this being just one of them. What do they have to lose?

They have consistently thrown in the towel while diluting the very things that users would choose them over Chrome for.

There are many ways to exert influence in this world. Mozilla is in SV and is very much part of the culture and ecosystem. We need genuine alternatives and activism against entrenched interests.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#514

Post by freshhawk »

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…

So, the argument is ... either cede control of your browser to us in a form where it is illegal to examine what we do with it OR we will continue to use a piece of crappy technology that exposes you to security problems.

That sounds less like a technical problem and more like a threat to me. Because neither of those are actually technically necessary, except to support a business model that depends on some form of DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#516

Post by WorldMaker »

thephyber wrote: post #169
wolfgke wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where has the pushback been for plugins that permitted DRM? I have never installed any plugin for DRM and don't know anybody who has.* I also warned people about the dangers of DRM all the time. In this sense the pushback was always there - but since browser plugins were hated anyway this was a rather easy fight. * OK, to be 100% honest: I am aware that Flash allowed some kind of DRM - but I never seen or used any…

Flash and Silverlight plugins have been used by Netflix/Hulu on desktop browsers. I highly doubt nobody you know has installed them. It's much more likely they simply don't tell you they did or it never came up in conversation.

Plus most of the users using Flash and Silverlight for things like watching movies aren't likely to recognize that they are plugins. The answer to "How do you watch movies online?" is probably "Hulu" or "Netflix". Flash and Silverlight were never brands that non-technical users paid much attention to, they were means to an end. If they install something to "watch movies on Netflix", they may not remember because it was a one-time ask by the site they visit, and whatever it asked them to install didn't matter to the user so long as they could "watch movies on Netflix".

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#517

Post by appleflaxen »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #512
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can point to one example of a website that implements DRM that otherwise wouldn't have, I'll buy this argument. The argument that some companies will avoid things their customers hate seems illogical, but you'll believe me if I provide an anecdote? > On the other side, I can point to many websites that removed Flash/Silverlight/other security nightmare plugins after implementing EME. Which is irrelevant beca…

The argument is that nobody will go out of their way to implement DRM unless they are contractually obliged. As preposterous as your scenario sounds to me, I will grant you the argument if you can find a website that goes through the trouble to do it even though they don't have to. Note that this isn't an "anecdote" but a counterexample that disproves my proposition. > Which is irrelevant because it has had a long kn…

exactly. which is how it should be: a pain in the ass for your customers if you want them to install drm.

the cost should be born by the company who wants it, not the public.

why is this a bad thing for anybody but a content producer? and if it's not anybody else, then... why do we care? we have already legislated away the right to copy something in return for promoting creation. but the creation is going to happen one way or the other, so we need to go much further than the EFF advocates: we need to scale back copyright drastically.

it would have virtually zero cost to the public, and would not meaningfully affect creative output.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#518

Post by freshhawk »

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…

That used to be their attitude, and then they saw the drop in viewers as young people shifted to different online ways of distracting themselves.

They discovered that the whole "You will come to us. We are the rulers of content" attitude was delusional.

Now they are falling over themselves to get back to the top, while kids watch idiots play video games on twitch.

And even my 60+ year old parents just stream torrents because no one can provide a better experience no matter how much you are willing to pay.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#519

Post by eridius »

> 58.4% of the group voted to go on with publication, and the W3C did so today, an unprecedented move in a body that has always operated on consensus and compromise.

What exactly is the EFF saying should have happened? More than 50% voted to go ahead with it. The majority voted for it. I don't see how the W3C going with the majority vote is a dick move. Consensus and compromise is obviously very important, but when one side is strictly anti-DRM, it's pretty hard to compromise. This just seems like the EFF being bitter that they lost and trying to disparage the W3C.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#520

Post by otakucode »

throwaway34241 wrote: post #238
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…

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…

I agree that this style of debate is not terribly useful, but I will grant that this issue does stir significant emotion in people who are seeing their baby suffocated to death. However, I am uncertain what you believe is meant by 'actual corruption'? How could abandoning consensus, the normal functioning of the body for decades, and refusing to continue discussion in order to reach a compromise, not be a de-facto corruption of the organization?
Post reply on HN