W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns • Hacker News Board

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#641

Post by hrjet » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:12 AM UTC

ashark wrote: post #327

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…

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…

We don't need a new web; just more browsers that respect the user's privacy. There are many ways to achieve this. At gngr[0], we are taking a "safe by default" approach. This is very similar to the NoScript / uMatrix approach, but with one difference: the browser itself is offering this and is hence more water tight. There are no behind-the-scenes requests that a plugin can't block.

[0]: https://gngr.info

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#642

Post by sowbug » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:14 AM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #588

malloreon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is very difficult to make someone understand something if their livelihood is predicated on them not understanding it."

Could we put a moratorium on just posting cynical quotes that almost everyone has heard without adding something original to the discussion?

But... but... you're the product! Don't you get it!?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#643

Post by tree_of_item » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #576

madez wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM is harmful. Its prerequisite is that users do not control their hardware. This has far reaching consequences that go well beyond media consumption and entertainment.

That's not axiomatic; in fact, it's a normative claim, not a positive one. The argument is not that there are no consequences, but that DRM is a net positive because those consequences are the trade off for more and better content online. Why don't you clarify why you think the tradeoff is not worth it, instead of just saying DRM = bad?

What they said was that DRM = user does not control their hardware, not DRM = bad. And that's true.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#644

Post by LeoPanthera » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:17 AM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #609

LeoPanthera wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Though since there is an app for iOS, I doubt many people cared.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#645

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #577

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #413

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…

Then what purpose does EME serve?

That seems to be the false dichotomy. The claim is that EME is justified in order to get rid of the oh-so-evil Adobe Flash. But if using native apps is a satisfactory alternative that can also replace Flash then why do we need to corrupt the web?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#646

Post by slrz » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:30 AM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #561

y_tho wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's quite naive to believe the W3C members are virgins here and did this out love for the web and for the consumers. So, no evidence, only a feeling of evidence.

"There's a lot of money involved, therefore there must be foul play." I personally would much rather have a secure, optimized and clean implementation, rather than hacky plugins and poorly developed solutions that put me at risk and destroy performance.

But hacky, platform-dependent plugins is exactly what we get. Websites just get a standardized JS API to talk to these hacky binary-only plugins.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#647

Post by alexasmyths » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:30 AM UTC

sasas wrote: post #629

md224 wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument for DRM (we need to ensure artists receive fair compensation for their work), but I wonder: If the entertainment industry could survive the age of "DVD ripping with abandon", can't it survive the age of "people copying Netflix movies with abandon"? Do industry leaders anticipate the latter will be much worse than the former? Is the cash flow situation that dire? Or is DRM abou…

How do you prevent someone from capturing their screen and recording a movie? Do you really think it will stop or slow down piracy ? What we do know for certain is it will strip you as a consumer of control over of hardware and software that you purchased.

It's supply and demand.

Nothing will stop 'piracy' - noting will stop any crime.

Copying DVD's required cost and labour. There's a limit to how much pirating any individual can do.

Over the net - it's rather instantaneous.

DRM'd content raises the bar beyond most people, so it cuts down on piracy.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#648

Post by dannyobrien » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:34 AM UTC

DCKing wrote: post #253

noir_lord wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they where in the US.

Lots of this stuff is so US focused. Any European nation for one will let you reverse engineer stuff you buy or download to your own heart's content in the safety of your own home. I expect many countries in the world are civilized like that.

Almost every country, with the exception of Israel, has implemented the anti-DRM provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty using similar language to the United States, or worse. In the European countries, it's embodied in the European Copyright Directive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive#Technologi...

That's one of the reason why we argued so strongly that the W3C should include a covenant. Even if EFF continues to successfully obtain temporary exemptions from the DMCA in the tri-annual review, we can't do that for security researchers or lobby for similar fair use exemptions in every country.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#649

Post by alexasmyths » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:36 AM UTC

apatters wrote: post #323

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…

I think it's time to start contemplating alternatives to the Web. The interests of users are no longer front and center. The past several years of the Web platform's evolution have been characterized by privacy invasions, out of control Javascript, spammy push notifications, AMP... and now this. This is not what many of us signed up for. I don't know if there even are alternatives to the Web at this time but when you…

"The interests of users are no longer front and center. "

Netflix is a 'user' of the internet, as any other.

The web is open - those who want to share their content freely can do that - those who want to DRM, they can do that.

The 'march of economics' is usually just the 'march of reality'. Game of Thrones is expensive to make - ultimately, people have to get paid for it somehow.

Most creative/entertainment projects are a dud. Only a few even make money.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#650

Post by hedora » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:40 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #28

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 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…

I paid for spotify. Then they cut 10% of the music I listen to. Then they did that what seemed like every month until I cancelled.

If the social contract for DRM was "subscribe to a growing library of content for an inflation-adjusted rate", that'd be fine. Instead, the contract is "cede all your rights until there are no technological alternatives and a few monopolies own the whole market".

Not cool. I'd love to see the w3c disband over this.