521–530 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the press release, with testimonials from the RIAA, MPAA, CableLabs, Netflix, Microsoft and Comcast. https://www.w3.org/2017/09/pressrelease-eme-recommendation.h...
Ouch. W3C is just a trade association at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Websites that otherwise wouldn't have used DRM start to use it, that's what changes.
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.
They have a lot of pull among a huge number of sites that depend on ad revenue.
Start buying this argument.
I think i don't get it. A company called Microsoft builds a software which is able to render html. This company makes money and talks to another company called google which also is making money by selling movies and stuff and which builds a software which is able to render html. And those two companies are talking to a third huge company, who makes a shit ton of money and also makes a software which is able to render…
any consumer should have the option of using it, if they want.
the problem here is the codification as a standard, and the implicit endorsement that the W3C creates in providing the standard.
DRM is expensive to your freedom, and it should be as expensive as possible for media companies to implement. by making it opt-in rathen than can't-even-opt-out-if-you-want-to, the W3C are really giving the public interest the middle finger.
Remember the corporate sponsors of the original EME proposal in 2012: Google, Microsoft, and Netflix https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
The only reasons I can see is that studios/rights owners are either requiring DRM for newest titles, or that they offer rebates on DRM'd material. They rights owners also probably prefer other people to run their errand, as some of them aren't too popular, and others have simply made themselves to a laughing stock in at least some parts of the internet.
Can somebody explain what exactly is happening here? What were the pros/cons of the move? e.g., it is possible that browsers are in a tight spot: If they fail to provide certain functionality, then content providers just move to native apps. Was that the tradeoff here?
A large minority of W3C members, led by EFF, were trying to tie the publication of this specification with a legal contract (called a covenant) between members preventing them to sue people (under laws like the DMCA) if they did nothing more than break the DRM. This would leave copyright infringers liable to law suits, but not security researchers, developers of accessibility add-ons, and so on.
This proposal gather a large minority, but a minority nonetheless.
The W3C process doesn't let the majority win automatically. Normally, it goes by consensus, and keeps negotiations going until all find something they can agree on. If that fails to happen, and someone objects to the decision being proposed, the director of the W3C (who is incidentally the person who invented the web), gets to call the shot.
If a majority of members thinks he called the shot wrong, he can be overturned in appeal.
This decision to publish the final version of the EME specification without a covenant was appealed, and the appeal failed.
On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups want DRM and they will get it. This doesn't mean that we are going to lose all freedom on the Web. It's a step in that direction, certainly, but we're sure as heck not there yet.
and it _is_ a slippery slope.
are you really going to _not_ use gmail and google maps because you can't see the source code? of course you're not. but is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is.
so there is every incentive in the world for web pages to be made proprietary, and no incentive at all for users to put up a fight (which is why this first step is so important: because it's being made at the level of technologists, who supposably have the insight to know why it's important).
but after this, the progression will be slow, but relentless, toward a closed web. Even if a subset of ideological wackos decide to fight... they're just ideological wackos.
Stallman was right, and this is the exact same thing playing out again on a distributed medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems self-evidently unharmful, in that we appear to be in a golden era of delivering content online so extraordinary that it threatens traditional television networks. I understand that this is an extremely unpopular sentiment on HN, but here goes: at least with respect to video content, the industry seems to have largely proven DRM concerns unfounded. Update: modulo the Hickson concerns below. Continuing: DRM ce…
The really insane part is that the DRM is pointless anyway, you can go onto any file sharing/streaming site within minutes of a Netflix release dropping and it's there in HD. I still maintain my netflix account 1) because my mum uses it with her Roku and 2) because they should be paid for providing value and good TV. I have the technical skills (like nearly all HN readers I'd imagine) to stream whatever I want with e…
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…
The less customers like something, the less willing a company will be to sign a contract obligating them to do it.
> Your "solution" is not a solution for 99.99% of web users
One device used only for watching media is called a television and something like 99.99% of Americans actually have one already.
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 they can't. Physical media is going under. Newspapers and magazines are folding, music is primarily distributed digitally, even TV stations are treating the web as their primary means of content distribution. Media companies have no other revenue paths that will matter over a decade, much less a century, and most no longer have the money, resources or capabilities to do anything else.
>The web needs these media companies more than the media companies need the web.
The web is nothing but a network of networks. It wouldn't even blink if every big media company went bankrupt and took all of their content with them. The web would be a lot less interesting and a lot less fun, and make a lot less money, but it would still exist, and people would just keep distributing and pirating what they have.
Media companies, meanwhile, have bet their entire future on the web, and are only now realizing that it isn't the gravy train they thought it was.
> Just acknowledgement of the fact that artists own their works, and web developers need to kiss their ass if they want artists to publish on the web.
Whether or not artists own their works is orthogonal to the fact that digital content distribution has rendered their works nearly valueless, and opened a nearly infinite competitive market for similar work.
Rights are irrelevant. Morality is irrelevant. What the artists want or feel entitled to is irrelevant. The cultural significance of the corpus is irrelevant. Effective DRM is technically impossible and if that's what artists are depending on to survive in the digital age, then they will lose.
They can die like the dinosaurs, or adapt to the new order and become birds. But they cannot, ever, ever unstrike the meteor that is the web.
So this is how the open web dies. Can we fork the W3C into a non-corporate puppet now?
nobody cares about things they perceive as fringe ideological issues until it's too late.
they'll marginalize you by making fun of your personal habits while the open web dies.
only those of us who knew the web before it was closed will really know/care why it was special.