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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#681

Post by josteink »

wtmt wrote: post #668
tptacek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your points about usage of TPB, less convenience, lower quality, cost being low enough - all of them seem to be from the U.S. or first world perspective. In many other countries, TPB or equivalent is very common across classes of people (not just students but also workers in different non-technology industries). Unauthorized copies are more convenient because most people watch media on a tiny laptop or a small monito…

> TPB, less convenience, lower quality

For me, a DRM-free experience is one I can enjoy on all platforms and devices I have. It also has a much better general UX.

Measured in all ways I can measure quality, DRM only reduces it. Thus sites like TPB still has the upper hand for people who care about quality, portability and UX.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#682

Post by tempestn »

krupan wrote: post #553
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…

Who watches Netflix with their browser ?

I do all the time, although I do it in a separate window with all the browser chrome hidden (and usually maximized to a side monitor anyway).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#683

Post by admax88q »

featherverse wrote: post #5
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…

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…

> It would be possible to create a browser that displays DRM content and ignores DRM.

The DMCA makes this illegal. No browser vendor is going to take that risk. Maybe some anonymous developers will release a firefox fork or similar, but that's a big risk. Not to mention, most groups who pirate content tend to keep their methods secret and only release the content.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#684

Post by bzbarsky »

Accacin wrote: post #22
Analemma_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM was coming to browsers with or without the W3C’s blessing. In fact, it was already there via plugins and wasn’t going away. This has changed nothing except where the implementation is documented. The hysteria over this is just ridiculous.

DRM doesn't and will never work. It only serves to annoy people that pay for the movie/game/whatever legitimately. It's against everything the W3C stands for. You dont' have to support something just because it's happening. You fight it, you don't give into it.

> DRM doesn't and will never work.

It depends on what you mean by "work". See https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 (linked elsewhere in this thread).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#685

Post by TeMPOraL »

Anderkent wrote: post #270
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. 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 binary blobs on otherwise open source operating syste…

In a large way, they already do that. They produce by viewership numbers, DRM or not.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#686

Post by TeMPOraL »

lovich wrote: post #653
tptacek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I'm not sure how true that is. Currently getting content is easy enough that the average consumer doesn't use it, but at least back in the mid 00's the technical people in my social circle got introduced to torrents by people who didn't know how turn off a computer except by unplugging it. They we're willing to take all sorts of risks with their computer on sk…

Related: remember SOPA, and the street protests with which Poland led the way to shutting it down in Europe?

I still really don't think the protests happened because people suddenly became aware of abstract consequences of an obscure deal proposal. But exactly at that time, in an unrelated case, FBI shut down Megavideo, widely used by regular people then. This is what they took as a future of Internet under SOPA, and that's why, I believe (based on first-hand experience), they went to the streets.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#687

Post by feelin_googley »

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…

"... web developers are going to go by the behavior of [what] the browsers do."

I have pointed this out before.

It is an important point that I think perhaps is overlooked when users ponder how to change the web.

Want to change how the web is presented, fix annoyances, scratch an itch?

Try to achieve through web development? Good luck.

Try to achieve through browser development? Far more interesting. Alternative, open source, non-commercial browser. For example, implements limited set of features.

Web development follows browser development.

For example, a browser that does not automatically follow URLs so that ads and other crud can be loaded into pages.

Giving users access to a browser like this may be a far more effective means of influencing web development away from annoying "user experiences".

If such annoyances rely on a certain modern web browser feature, then use a browser that lacks the feature.

Non-commercial means developers do not care about "market share". They are not trying to "compete" with the major browsers on features. They care about creating a superior alternative to major browsers that shifts the focus from advertisers and media companies to users.

If the annoyances users have while using major browsers are bad enough, then they will try alternatives and the "market share" may shift. Or maybe not. But who cares? Because with an alternative browser "market share" is not the goal.

In another thread, a Chrome developer perhaps a former Firefox developer tells of how they dropped some feature because it was too "power-user" and that is not "what [they] were going for". Maybe you are within the market they "are going for". And maybe you are not. If you are not, then waiting for developers at a large corporation, whose customers are advertisers, to cater to your needs is futile.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#688

Post by baddox »

DrJokepu wrote: post #539
pedrocr wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess Google Chrome on Windows must be a niche thing then. Because that only gets 720p.

> Not possible on any open-source operating system So where do you get more than 720p if you don't get it neither on open source operating systems nor on Chrome on Windows? If you get 720p max everywhere, why do you think this has anything to do with DRM?

On televisions. Most 4k TVs and the increasingly common 4k streaming boxes support 4k playback for the major services that offer it (basically Netflix and Amazon AFAIK).

I don't know if this has much to do with DRM, or if it's just a matter of supporting HEVC.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#689

Post by baddox »

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.

FYI, they literally try to do that. HDCP is DRM between displays and video output devices.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#690

Post by TeMPOraL »

kerkeslager wrote: post #579
jdmichal wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll repost a comment by mcphage on why this doesn't work, in general. TL;DR is that common ontologies sound great but don't work in reality, because it leaves no room for value-added services from individual providers. (Recipes would probably be OK, because there's just not a lot of value-add you can really provide. Or, alternatively, I'm just completely ignorant about how value could be added.) https://news.ycombin…

You left out users when you said "everybody". Yes, this model makes it so content creators actually have to create content or their customers will drop them for a better content creator. That sounds great for users. I'm not sure why I should care that a few user-hostile rent-seeking entities won't have complete control of the internet anymore. The API extensions causing vendor lock-in complaint is fairly bogus. Featu…

GP's comment is a perfect example of the heuristic that the phrase "value-added" means that someone wants to fuck you over hard.
Post reply on HN