631–640 of 1001 posts
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.
Standardising on this means the exact opposite, there will not need to be an app for everything, just the web.
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…
Unfortunately, among the crucial functions nowadays are the silly cosmetics, the parallax scrolling, the animated backgrounds, that allow marketers to pretend to have a website when all they have is formating for zero content. We failed to provide them with this fluff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it's foolish to think that. Right now, if you wanted to share a video from HBO to your friend (assuming you couldn't give your account), what are your options. There's no easy way for you to just give that content to your friend. You'd have to link them to a third-party site hosting the content, which is not the same thing. With no DRM, it would be as simple as doing a right-click and copy video link.
If the choice is no DRM or literally not making any money on the Internet, content creators will choose no DRM every time. Technologists have all the leverage here. If the web simply didn't support DRM, do you think Netflix, Hulu, and NBCUniversal would pack their bags and lose on billions of dollars because of some theoretical increases in piracy? Of course not. They'd just offer their content with no DRM.
There are many file sharing, illicit streaming and torrent websites that have the entire HBO catalog available. They are pretty easy to find with simple Google searches. Piracy is not esoteric, it's pervasive even today. There is absolutely no technical obstacle to watching any HBO or major studio's content online for free. And that's arguably a lot easier then figuring out how to copy a huge file for non-technical users. DRM can't have any major effect here, people who want to pirate will pirate, DRM be damned.
The only thing DRM does is introduce barriers to legitimate interoperability and innovation. You get situations like "does this operating system or device support Netflix?" which is unheard if the web was truly an open system.
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.
Imagine I would make the money I pay for media also DRM protected, so it can only be spend in a specific way? Would they accept my money?
> 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 o…
When it's the first time they've broken with consensus, and the decision is very much not in the best interests of the common user - it's kind of a big deal.
DRM may be a necessity for corporations to feel they can make money safely - it's not consumer friendly, and it certainly doesn't need to be a part of the open standard.
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…
Really, I just need to find the time to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Linux is a small meaningless edge case for these companies anyway, I just mentioned it because the portability of a plugin is much higher than of a full native app - so if there's any chance it'll be supported, it's in the web-based world. How many sites will be using this outside of stuff like Netflix/Amazon/PS Vue/Sling and co? Buying someone's DRM solution or building your own only makes sense for high-dollar cont…
It's already supported both ways. Chrome on Linux can play Netflix, and before that there were third party packages that would install the Netflix app for Windows along with all of the patches necessary to make it run on Linux.
It should obviously also be possible to run the Netflix app for Android on Linux, as demonstrated by the fact that all the phones are doing it.
It doesn't really matter how hard it is to make it work, because for a high value target like Netflix, someone will make it work. And none of that will actually satisfy the free software people regardless, because it's a binary blob either way.
> How many sites will be using this outside of stuff like Netflix/Amazon/PS Vue/Sling and co? Buying someone's DRM solution or building your own only makes sense for high-dollar content?
How many sites used to use Flash?
You have to expect that somebody is going to produce a low dollar cost DRM system (which is correspondingly even more buggy and ineffective) and market it to managers who don't know any better.
> 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 o…
It was the pro-DRM side that were unwilling to make even such a minimal good-faith compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then DRMed content will be properly separated off into its miserable DRM slum that everyone hates, the cost of using it will be higher, users will complain more, companies who don't use DRM will capture more of the market, etc. That's the entire point.
What "miserable slum", though? Honestly, I find Netflix's Android app an absolute delight to use. Even if I'm sitting on my couch with my laptop, I'll pick up my phone to cast something to the TV before I use my laptop for that purpose. All in all, average customers (as in, not the majority of the HN crowd) seem perfectly happy with the current experience. Even if they had to install a native app to watch Netflix on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practical terms, DRM obviously can be made to work. People ideologically opposed to DRM tend to have two blind spots about the DRM service model. First, they assume that DRM users demand that DRM prevent any copies being made. But that's not true: obviously, any video you show a user in the privacy of their home can be cam-copied. It has even been the case (though it will be less and less the case moving forward)…
People who are not fooled by the ideology of DRM are fully aware that DRM is a legal strategy, not a technology. That doesn't change the technological harm of DRM. Putting a DRM-shaped hole in web standards makes browsers less secure, less stable, and less maintainable. iTunes copy protection used to be broken in a few hours, Blu Ray is long since cracked. DRM is neither secure nor cryptographically sound ( http://cr…
That's similar to saying words don't communicate well.
It makes no sense to say that DRM is cryptographically unsound - for the very reason you state, DRM is not a technology.
There have been non-optimal algorithmic choices and weak key-management, but those are entirely separate from saying DRM is cryptographically unsound.