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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#601

Post by StavrosK »

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #363
smsm42 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember I has signed up for Audible - and was completely prepared to pay their subscription fees, despite a lot of content being available on pirate sites for $0. But I am old enough to value my time and pay reasonable fee for just mere convenience. And also it's the right thing to do, right? Turned out, however, that I could not play this content on most of my devices, because it was DRMed into something awful, d…

You can get rid of the DRM easily with FFmpeg: ffmpeg -activation_bytes 1CEB00DA -i test.aax -vn -c:a copy output.mp4 See: http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-all.html#Audible-AAX

Thank you for that, I have a bunch of Audible titles that I want to listen to but I prefer another audiobook player.

The fact that it's a choice between "use the player I like" and "listen to the books I bought" is why DRM is evil.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#602

Post by ekianjo »

untog wrote: post #250
wolfgke wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mozilla ended up accepting EME in 2014, because otherwise it would have become "the browser where you cannot see videos" Rather: "the browser where you cannot see DRM-infected video" - which is an active protection of the user against malware.

...and which no-one will download. To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but "people should just not watch DRMed video" is not an actual answer to the problem at hand.

> To be clear: if DRM is not implemented in browsers, Netflix and the like will just make native apps, which are far larger vectors of malware attack than the locked down EME standard is.

False dichotomy. Instead of exposing a small percentage of users to large attack vector (native app), you are exposing a very large percentage of users (close to 100%) with a lower attach vector. THe potential for damage is much, much higher, since it would affect about everyone using the Internet with major browsers.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#603

Post by shmerl »

favorited wrote: post #416
shmerl wrote: post #344

W3C is morally dead. Quite a sad development.

W3C is not an organization focused on morals. It is an organization which exists to advocate for and codify open web standards (note, not an open web, but open standards ).

They sold out those standards to DRM proponents, so that ends the trust of them working for the common good.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#604

Post by kerkeslager »

rotrux wrote: post #474
kerkeslager wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh but don't worry! As soon as someone breaks www.cookbooksRus.com's "Encrypted Media Extensions," you or someone totally benevolent will be able to help render ANYONE's www.cookbooksRus.com browser-experience! Server-protection isn't always a 0-sum game against client-protection, but in this case it totally is.

When the files being passed around are self-contained documents, the central server becomes less and less even a necessary component of the system.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#605

Post by flukus »

tptacek wrote: post #91
barrkel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're discounting the opportunity cost here. In a world where browser manufacturers, as a block, refused to implement DRM, it's seems obvious that sooner or later visual media producers would be forced to the table, to gain access to paying consumers. We could be in a DRM-free world, without the inconveniences of elaborate technical restrictions on pass-through and mutual device compatibility, or black box b…

I see how that gets us to a DRM-free world, but not so much why ordinary consumers would care. To a first approximation, no ordinary consumer uses TPB. Unauthorized copies are less convenient (especially since mainstream playback devices won't play them) and frequently of lower quality. The price point for legitimate copies is low enough that the purchase decision isn't that hard. A standards body is a great place to…

> To a first approximation, no ordinary consumer uses TPB.

Ordinary consumers get it via sneaker-net on a USB key that they can now plug directly into their TV. Before that there was pirated DVD's and video cassettes, but the ease and cost of piracy is still improving faster than legitimate methods.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#606

Post by mljoe »

ehsankia wrote: post #570
colde wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stre…

People were naively thinking/hoping that once Flash and plugins die, DRM would magically disappear and media companies would start putting all their content on the open web, for anyone to access. I'm with you, I'd much rather have a clean, secure and well implemented option, rather than each company trying to hack together a solution that will be buggy, insecure and inefficient. The option of there being no DRM was r…

I wouldn't say that. If it between having no DRM and having no web presence, I think broadcasters would pick no DRM. DRM really doesn't do very much to protect against piracy. It's just a way for C-level execs to show they are doing something to protect their IP. It's a kind of security theater.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#607

Post by joe_the_user »

dsacco wrote: post #595
madez wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the consequences affect everybody, all the time, even those that do not want to watch DRM'ed stuff online. That price is too high.

How do the consequences affect everybody, all the time? Why is the price too high? I'm not being obtuse, this is legitimately not obvious to me. Unpack your reasoning a bit, because I still don't see why it's axiomatic that DRM can't be a valuable tradeoff.

As was said before, DRM implies that no user controls their machine because it implies that someone else's content is always "safe" on that user's machine. DRM is inherently pernicious to everything from basic computer security to a democratic society.

The right to read:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#608

Post by gsnedders »

guelo wrote: post #231
dannyobrien wrote: post #208

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.

Except that's literally all it ever has been.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#609

Post by gsnedders »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #340
dottrap wrote: post #315

Did Apple actually support this proposal? Seems like their own self-interest would want them to reject this. The lack of a standardized web DRM would push developers to native apps which benefits Apple. And web DRM doesn't benefit the iTunes eco-system.

Safari has supported for DRM for quite a while. It was the first browser to support Netflix without a plugin.

Notably Safari on iOS was the largest browser to not support Netflix prior to this.
Post reply on HN