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

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#671

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:04 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…

> 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.

One of the main reasons we need so much new content is because a large percentage of old content is no longer accessible, mostly for reasons related to rights management.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#672

Post by _phaq » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:05 AM UTC

DCKing wrote: post #241

Can anybody explain to me what will change because of this decision? DRM has been very much part of the internet since 1995 when RealPlayer was released. DRM has been part of content delivery ever since then. It has not ever seem to have decreased in popularity, quite the opposite. The browsers that 99.9% of people use have already implemented this standard for years anyway. It's not obvious to me that this decision…

The fear is that this makes it far too easy to use DRM for webpage owners. Previously, you had to pull in a slow-ass Flash-plugin or similar, which was very much known to bring all kinds of security issues.

Now you just say "DRM this" and it does it, and you have the security issues whether you use DRM or not.

As a result, webpage owners might start DRMing things that were previously just not worth DRMing. Like images, text.

If you want to cite a news article in the future, you might have to type it off by hand instead of copy-pasting the part.

Also, just like DRM has done before, it's going to make content inaccessible for those who want to view that content at a later point with different technology, except that this time around it's not just going to be Netflix, it's going to be a good portion of the web.

So, yes, DRM has been part of the web for a long time, but how big that part is, is going to dramatically change.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#673

Post by tanilama » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:11 AM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #4

Basically, unless you are writing a browser with decent marketshare, you defacto have no voice in making the standards. Basically, the only voices that matter are Mozilla (Firefox), Apple (Safari), Google(Chrome), and Microsoft (Edge/Explorer). Despite what any standard says, web developers are going to go by the behavior of the browsers do. The only company on the list of browser makers that really has any desire to…

Sadly that is the ugly Truth about politics. Not really about rules it is all about power, hard power.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#674

Post by khedoros1 » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:24 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #445

khedoros1 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash and Silverlight DRM (as an example of 2) weren't previously web standards, and even the 3rd party plugins that included them had significant non-DRM-related uses. This is a different animal: Adding standardized interfaces to browsers specifically designed to talk to dedicated DRM modules.

That's what I'm asking about; where was the pushback on those two bits of DRM? The position advocated by the poster I was responding too would take a very harsh view on Flash and Silverlight, even with their other uses.

Right, and from what they posted, I'm sure they took a harsh view of DRM-supporting plugins at the time too. I was trying to answer your questions about why there wasn't historically pushback that matches what we're seeing over EME now.

There were people that complained about Netflix using Silverlight, and such (in my case, it meant I couldn't watch it on my PC, for example). People complained about Flash back in its heyday too.

EME isn't causing a general outcry though, outside of certain corners of the tech world.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#675

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:24 AM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #522

lern_too_spel wrote: post #467

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. On the other side, I can point to many websites that removed Flash/Silverlight/other security nightmare plugins after implementing EME.

Ad networks are waiting for this in order to move a lot of ad code to a place where they can make ad-blocking illegal. They have a lot of pull among a huge number of sites that depend on ad revenue. Start buying this argument.

The web browsers already support this API. Where are the ad networks serving DRM ads claiming that blocking ads is illegal? On what basis does blocking ads constitute copyright infringement in order to justify prosecution under DMCA?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#676

Post by subroutine » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:27 AM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #276

featherverse wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest not underestimating Mozilla's market influence. It would be possible to create a browser that displays DRM content and ignores DRM. The only thing that content publishers could do is ban that browser. And then it would adapt to disguise itself as other browsers. DRM on the web can only happen if all of the major players (that is, browser publishers) agree to play along. I am very excited about this ne…

> I would suggest not underestimating Mozilla's market influence. They have no market influence. They have maybe ~10% of the market globally (I've seen figures between 5-15%), and that's primarily desktop - which is decreasing daily. On mobile it's even worse (probably less than 1%). Any influence they have solely extends to the desktop, and that's not the primary way people are interacting with the internet nowadays…

If what the above says is true (Though Im not sure it is possible), and Mozilla can provide a way to display DRM content without adopting DRM standard, I would think that would increase its marketshare.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#677

Post by josteink » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:39 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #334

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…

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. Doesn't seem obvious to me. Why wouldn't they use their existing native apps?

Netflix, the original HTML DRM-pusher, actually does. For a gazillion kinds of platforms and devices and they're doing fine.

In fact it seems they have apps for all platforms out there, except the traditional desktop, something it would cost them almost nothing to provide on top of their existing app-offerings.

Basically Netflix is the best proof you have that you don't need DRM in HTML.

And yet here we are. It's absolutely infuriating.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#678

Post by admax88q » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:39 AM UTC

chenster wrote: post #612

yakubin wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix allows you to download videos. I've watched several episodes of Star Trek on a train this way.

You can even download Netflix to your phone and watch it later.

And then it casually and silently deletes them after some unspecified time. Which has screwed me before on a long flights.

Now I always pirate media in advance I intend to watch in the air. I don't want to have to babysit my netflix downloads to make sure that they really are downloaded.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#679

Post by bzbarsky » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:40 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #519

> 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…

If you think one side is "strictly anti-DRM", you haven't read the article.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#680

Post by bzbarsky » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:43 AM UTC

MrMid wrote: post #9

Doesn't Firefox block DRM content by default? If they continue to do so, and if Chrome does so, then this shouldn't have much effect. If most peoples browsers block it, apps shouldn't use it.

Google was one of the organizations that pushed the DRM standard through the W3C. Because Youtube.