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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#741

Post by eponeponepon »

jopsen wrote: post #708
d--b wrote: post #700

What people don't get is that EME sets a strange precedent in the history of HTML. Web browsers have always been very hackable. HTTP meant you could always look at the traffic being exchanged. And because there was little point in obscuring anything, web browsers allowed you to look into and modify everything: - view/modify document source - view/modify DOM - debug script - and so on This is how CSS was defined too.…

HTML have always had plugins too... this ends that. Think of EME as a slightly better sandboxed plugin with a single very small purposes... As oppose to the security horrors from Flash

If there aren't already enterprise software firms investigating how to offer their SuperWidgetron 10000 HR system through EME in the browser, I will eat my hat.

The single very small purpose will soon enough be worked around, messed with and extended to do more than it was ever "supposed" to - just look at JavaScript.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#742

Post by peoplewindow »

pjc50 wrote: post #666
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…

Unauthorized copies tend to be more convenient, since the days of region free DVD players. I strongly believe that the convenience of Netflix and iTunes only exists because of piracy, and the industry would never have chosen it otherwise. They'd be stuck on pay per view.

That's only true if you ignore the problem of malware getting on people's systems via pirated downloads. This is a large and significant source of malware (as people tend to override virus scanners and such).

Piracy does have serious negative side effects on both content creators and end users. It's kind of a hacker fantasy that it doesn't.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#743

Post by Freak_NL »

jjeaff wrote: post #721
slrz wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do get better quality, but only if your system has an OS-level DRM implementation and the browser uses it. This is the case for IE Edge on recent Windows, but not much else. Chrome on Windows uses its own Widevine DRM implementation instead of the OS-integrated one. This shitshow is referred to as "robustness requirements" and Netflix apparently agreed to serve high-resolution video only to DRM implementations of…

All this complexity to protect the content and yet there isn't a movie or TV show out there you can't find in crisp 1080p on Usenet or torrent sites with one quick search.

That's the maddening part that's driving me away from Netflix and similar services. I am completely willing to a pay reasonable sum for content, and the current batch of media providers do a tolerable job, but limiting the image quality because my computer is too free is just silly.

I can get the exact same episode or film — in any resolution — on my HTPC in five minutes, DRM free, by breaking the rules.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#744

Post by icebraining »

nindalf wrote: post #701
josteink wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abs…

So what's the benefit to consumers if streaming services abandon the web? I know of one such service - NowTV, that insisted on me downloading the native app on macOS instead of watching within the browser. Personally I preferred Netflix's browser version, DRM notwithstanding. DRM is the price that content providers ask of Netflix. Netflix is fine with that, because the alternative is less content. Browser makers are…

So what's the benefit to consumers if streaming services abandon the web?

1. It avoids the ethical problem of pushing DRM onto people who just want a browser. (Firefox does offer a EME-free version, but you have to look for it, when you might not even know what EME is). If a CDM module installed automatically by Firefox becomes an exploit vector, they are ethically responsible, in my opinion.

2. It preserves browser competition. CDM modules only work in approved browsers, so people building new browsers are at a disadvantage. They may be able to use Firefox's sandboxed component, but it's not clear yet.

3. It avoids having second-class OSs for those browsers. For example, Firefox runs on MIPS and SPARC, but the CDM modules don't.

4. It makes it more expensive to use DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#745

Post by someonewhocar3s »

kagamine wrote: post #728
thinkloop wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people want to do something about it, they need to fork the web itself. HTTP, TLS, HTML, CSS, JS ... the entire stack needs to be scrapped and replaced with something sensible with a focus on simplicity. That's flash.

> That's flash Comedy aside, CSS isn't the problem, but if an experienced web-dev can't make a site without learning for 5+ years and then feel like they have no knowledge of web development then we have a problem, and that's where we are now. The problem with the long list of frameworks and libraries available is that there is no easy way to make a web2.0 site without years and years of learning and then the resulti…

There's a lot of people signing onto stupid web frameworks and other hype. Within .NET there is a single filter pass applied by Microsoft, but honestly I don't touch it.

None of that is a proper critique on the Web. You're basically critiquing freedom of choice, which makes sense if you like .NET ;)

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#746

Post by eridius »

ctrl-j wrote: post #635
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…

> Consensus and compromise is obviously very important, but when one side is strictly anti-DRM, it's pretty hard to compromise. 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…

But it is in the interests of the common user. It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). But that belief is hopelessly naive. Sites like Netflix are never going to stop using DRM. They're contractually obligated to use it. Without EME, Netflix has to rely on plugins like Silverlight. With EME, Netflix can ship an HTML5 experience that works everywhere. That's good for users.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#747

Post by Freak_NL »

bsder wrote: post #531
noir_lord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really insane part is that the DRM is pointless anyway, you can go onto any file sharing/streaming site within minutes of a Netflix release dropping and it's there in HD. I still maintain my netflix account 1) because my mum uses it with her Roku and 2) because they should be paid for providing value and good TV. I have the technical skills (like nearly all HN readers I'd imagine) to stream whatever I want with e…

The big guys know that DRM doesn't work. DRM is about putting "color onto the bits" so people can be sued. Nothing more; nothing less.

> color onto the bits

Does that mean (effectively) watermarking?

Do pirated releases even come from (defeated) DRM sources these days?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#748

Post by nsomaru »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #737
wiz21c wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> The issues most people deal with in their everyday lives aren't important enough to motivate political action. Save for the fact that their life is completely shaped by politics. I like your analysis a lot, but I don't like your conclusion. Because ultimately, humans make politics, so one can influence them. In french there's a saying : if you don't care about politics, then politics will take care of you...

> In french there's a saying : if you don't care about politics, then politics will take care of you... There is an English template for expressing this idea; it goes "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you". I don't know what originally filled the spot where I've put in "politics".

Maybe 'war'?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#749

Post by x0x0 »

onion2k wrote: post #727
isostatic wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't I used to be able to buy mp3s from amazon - no DRM? That was before spotify and other streaming solutions of course. Do people want DRM-free media, or do they want ease of use?

Do people want DRM-free media, or do they want ease of use? There's no technical reason why there has to be a choice between the two. Spotify could implement 'Save to device' or 'Share this song offline' features very easily. The only reason they don't is down to the politics of ownership.

Spotify does implement save to device; their sole requirement is you go online once very 30 days.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#750

Post by rasz »

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…

There was a time browser worked for you. Opera up to 12.xx offered a panel letting you configure what JS can/cant do. It even let you configure global/per domain storage quotas and forbid websites from dumping megabytes of garbage on harddrive (Im talking to you ad network trackers/wikipedia). You can check out all of the sweet customization Opera 12.xx provided:

http://help.opera.com/operaconfig/versions/Win32/11.50/en/in...

Post reply on HN