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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#781

Post by felipelemos »

MBCook wrote: post #552
felipelemos wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This the only possible way to win on the long run.

Would an anti-DRM law actually be constitutional?

What part of the US Constitution would make it illegal? Companies should not have this kind of power. Internet is a basic need now, it's where we (as a race) create and share knowledge. If it is immoral to put restrictions on book consumptions, why should be moral to put restrictions on media consumption? And I'm not referring to access. You can buy a book on a store, and after that that book is yours you can lend to anyone else, and everyone can read the same pages on this same physical book. It the right to use the information after that you paid for it.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#782

Post by vertex-four »

thirdsun wrote: post #769
mljoe wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recording industry was very hardline with DRM, until one day Apple decided they won't support DRM anymore in the iTunes Store. Thus no music is purchased with DRM from any of the major e-tailers. 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 Netf…

> The recording industry was very hardline with DRM, until one day Apple decided they won't support DRM anymore in the iTunes Store. Thus no music is purchased with DRM from any of the major e-tailers. This is not comparable in my opinion. Music was bought, downloaded, stored locally and used on countless devices - from your living room setup, your NAS and media center, to portable players or your car. It made no sen…

> That said, of course if it was possible to buy and download movies for permanent offline viewing, similar to music purchases

There's actually quite a few systems which do exactly that. Funnily enough, all use DRM.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#784

Post by tudorw »

tudorw wrote: post #776
enriquto wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should all move back to gopher. Seriously.

I call dibs on the first gopher based social network... [edit] So I've read the RFC ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436 ) looks like it should be fairly simple, we can run gopher servers on both user machine and remote servers, so I can store my personal details locally, then give permission to other remote gopher servers to access that in a granular manner, third parties can operate gopher servers I can interface…

Cool, I'm searching Gopher, and it works :) Nice and quick, no tracking, no ads, just need something to consume, anyone want to help me whip up an HN > Gopher widget ;)

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#785

Post by hsivonen »

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.

The default in Firefox depends on which build, which operating system, which distributor. It's a boolean pref that you can flip the other way if you don't like the default you got.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#786

Post by d--b »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #772
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.…

I do not understand DRM/silverlight properly. Does this means that I won't be able to see what code is running in my browser for eg. JS collecting data in the background or use things like adblocker, greasemonkey etc.

No. The changes that are happening only affect DRM. So it means that when you watch a video/audio in the browser, there will be some encryption applied deep within the browser.

But it is a paradigm shift in the sense that it is the first time that a change is introduced in HTML that restricts the user from accessing the actual content that is being displayed.

Effectively, similar changes to the standard could be introduced to prevent users from tinkering with ads, or to prevent users from opting out of data collection.

In that sense, it opens the way to your browser being more like your phone.

Again, it's not _bad_ in itself, but it is a paradigm shift.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#787

Post by tudorw »

tudorw wrote: post #784
tudorw wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call dibs on the first gopher based social network... [edit] So I've read the RFC ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436 ) looks like it should be fairly simple, we can run gopher servers on both user machine and remote servers, so I can store my personal details locally, then give permission to other remote gopher servers to access that in a granular manner, third parties can operate gopher servers I can interface…

Cool, I'm searching Gopher, and it works :) Nice and quick, no tracking, no ads, just need something to consume, anyone want to help me whip up an HN > Gopher widget ;)

there's nothing new right, gopher://hngopher.com/1

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#788

Post by noir_lord »

DCKing wrote: post #731
dannyobrien wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right. I've done some digging, and some similar language has been implemented at least in the Netherlands (for the Dutch, this is article 29a of our Auteurswet). Although it's somewhat vague, it does bum me out. It seems the Dutch implementation has not been enforced all that often (mostly to combat game console mod chips), but it has been used to fight security researchers publishing stuff on security weaknes…

It's a terrain, some points are higher than others.

Not convinced any country isn't underwater though.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#789

Post by Tepix »

CMay wrote: post #223
Fej wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM doesn't work. Every form of DRM has historically been broken in one way or another. There are a couple of current systems that haven't been broken yet but it doesn't matter; content will be available from unauthorized sources the day they are released for streaming and no technical means is going to stop that. Even Denuvo, the darling of the major games publishers, is broken on a regular basis. The company acknow…

DRM does work. Whether Denuvo is successful depends on how it is implemented. Implementations of Denuvo have survived a year+ without being cracked. As you said, DRM often isn't intended to be secure forever, just for long enough that the major sales buzz is over anyway. You can also think of DRM as branching into online services. DRM commonly required some form of interaction with an online service to validate a key…

DRM is broken because sooner or later it will always prevent legitimate access to content.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#790

Post by franga2000 »

hacking_again wrote: post #670
wtmt wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 quality is usually very good, 1GB per hour is common and 4GB per hour is possible for high demand stuff. Plus you get a much better library. A fast internet connection makes the inconvenience of downloading vs. streaming go away.

Not to mention that you can usually start streaming a decent torrent after the first 10%.
Post reply on HN