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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#541

Post by [deleted] »

Touche wrote: post #29
jandrese wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really the issue. If we could convince media rightsholders that DRM is harmful and unnecessary then all of this heartache wouldn't be necessary. I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime. Any slight glimmer of hope from Apple ditching DRM on iTunes has died as nobody else shows the slightest interest in following their lead.

It's not harmful to them. I suggest reading this if you haven't already: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2

[deleted]

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#542

Post by MBCook »

emodendroket wrote: post #497
MBCook wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It goes against most people's notions of fairness to pay for a product and still have it encumbered with a lot of limitations. I think the case is stronger if we're talking about streams or rentals, but of course DRM is hardly limited to those.

But we’ve always had that. I mean every video tape I ever watched as a child had FBI warnings explaining that there were limits on what you could do with it.

The only difference is that the videotapes can now try and enforce it themselves.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#543

Post by bubblethink »

lioeters wrote: post #424
kibwen wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is, AFAIK, the only browser vendor that decouples the EME module from the browser, allowing the browser to be downloaded without any DRM support at all. See the various "EME-free" directories here: http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/55.0/

That design decision makes sense, to decouple the EME module, and great that Mozilla offers a prebuilt binary without it, as an opt-out. I wonder if Chromium (or a fork) can also be built without this feature?

I'm not sure what decoupling means, and whether it's of any technical significance beyond bragging rights, but chromium won't support drm out of the box either because widevine is obviously not a part of chromium. You can take the widevine library from chrome and make it work with chromium if you jump through some hoops.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#544

Post by AnthonyMouse »

majormajor wrote: post #505
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let them suffer the loss of revenue from losing all of those potential customers. Content producers who don't use DRM will be happy to take those customers from them, and those will be the content producers who have more money with which to make new content tomorrow.

Native apps on tablets, phones, and set top boxes are the future (present, really) of that, anyway. Linux users could be a bit more screwed if publishers had to move to Windows/Mac apps if interested in desktop/laptop users, but otherwise it wouldn't be a big impact for the big properties. What's the difference to a user of opening a Netflix app vs going there in the browser? Basically nothing. Do we want apps on the…

> Linux users could be a bit more screwed if publishers had to move to Windows/Mac apps if interested in desktop/laptop users

There is not any kind of real difference between not having a native app (or whatever WINE patches are needed to run it) and not having some platform-specific EME black box binary.

> What's the difference to a user of opening a Netflix app vs going there in the browser? Basically nothing.

For Netflix? Basically nothing. For the other 99.9% of websites that aren't as big as Netflix? Users balk at installing apps from little known sources, so those websites then won't have DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#545

Post by chrisweekly »

jdmichal wrote: post #463
dom0 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Hey, I love ASP.NET as much as the next guy. But there's no mistaking the large trend from what used to be entirely server-side rendering (LAMP days) to REST services with JavaScript front-ends.

SSR is table stakes for any reasonably modern web application.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#546

Post by MBCook »

yarrel wrote: post #442
MBCook wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it does not allow them to protect their content. Their content will still be distributed without their consent, because DRM is broken as quickly as it is implemented. And they will not be the one using DRM to control distribution of their content, the DRM vendor will be. Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?

> Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?

You don’t seriously expect people to engage in a discussion like this do you?

As emodendroket pointed out the rest of your comment is the argument against any kind of lock ever. It’s a false dichotomy.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#547

Post by sev »

benchaney wrote: post #540
sev wrote: post #82

DRM can't work in theory, but it is working in practice. If someone writes a piece of software that allows downloading of DRM-ed content (without losing quality, and playable anytime) from the big names (Netflix, Amazon, etc), then this battle would be won.

What are you talking about? Every popular TV show or movie is hosted on a free platform (free meaning both no cost and allowing freedom). How is that "working in practice"?

We are taking about DRM here. How do you know they are being stolen by breaking DRM? Maybe they copy DVD's or screeners or hacking a content provider. Not necessarily bypassing DRM. Some that do that I've seen are very low quality, hence my statement about lossless.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#548

Post by flukus »

cpeterso wrote: post #239
bigfoot wrote: post #104

The saddest part of this story is that Netflix/Amazon/younameit will continue to ignore and block Linux users as the niche market they are -- even if a future Firefox or Chrome version comes with the new standardized DRM everyone asked for. Lose/lose situation.

Netflix works with EME on Chrome and Firefox. Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They just don't provide customer support for troubleshooting on Linux.

> Netflix doesn't block Linux users.

They don't block (anymore) they just offer a degraded experience, 720p resolution only. Piracy still offers a superior product.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#549

Post by jameskegel »

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.

We can always reclaim Gopherspace!

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#550

Post by MBCook »

emodendroket wrote: post #172
MBCook wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actively against their interests. Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. So the browser companies support it. It’s not manditory , you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online. If you don’t like DRM then…

> If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal. Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice…

Honestly I’m not sure it’s possible to make DRM illegal. On what grounds with that be constitutional? Artists have had rights to control how their work is performed in the US forever. How is this any different? Why would one form get protection and not the other?

I mean legally I don’t know if this counts as a free speech argument or not I just don’t see how such a long would end up passing muster.

Post reply on HN