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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#821

Post by gsnedders »

DCKing wrote: post #779
camus2 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Previously" in this case would have been four years ago, would it not? Ever since then, EME has already been reality. If EME has been reality and commonplace since then, what does this W3C decision really change? There is no FUD here. The W3C should not be involved in standardizing DRM API. If browsers want to implement DRM it is their problems. Everybody dropped the ball here. Mozilla, the W3C ... they could have…

I agree with most of what you say, except your first sentence. The FUD here is that the implication is that now text and images will be DRM'ed. EME only allows DRM'ing video and audio. Facts matter, and making stuff up to 'support' the point does not help. His post literally starts with "the fear is..." and then provides no facts to support it. It may be so that they signed the death of the open web. But it seems to…

You can DRM images with EME fairly easily: you just have a single frame video. And you can always take the Twitter approach with text and just render it into an image, which is then just a single frame video.

That said, the text option is not that realistic as long as there are legal obligations as regards accessibility, which will require the accessibility tree to contain a closed captioned version of the media (and that isn't encrypted).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#822

Post by floatboth »

appleflaxen wrote: post #526
Fej wrote: post #36

On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups want DRM and they will get it. This doesn't mean that we are going to lose all freedom on the Web. It's a step in that direction, certainly, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

this is just the first step down a slippery slope. and it _is_ a slippery slope. are you really going to _not_ use gmail and google maps because you can't see the source code? of course you're not. but is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is. so there is every incentive in the world for web pages to be made proprietary, and no incentive at all for users to put up a fight (…

> is it beneficial for google to lock their code up behind a DRM blob? of course it is.

No, it's not. Their code is locked behind… uh… A SERVER. You could never see the server side code, and it's always been that way.

They do not give a flying fuck about people looking at their JavaScript UI code! That code is really, really NOT where the value is. The value is in the service — the databases full of data, the user accounts.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#823

Post by floatboth »

dottrap wrote: post #315

Did Apple actually support this proposal? Seems like their own self-interest would want them to reject this. The lack of a standardized web DRM would push developers to native apps which benefits Apple. And web DRM doesn't benefit the iTunes eco-system.

Well, it's still not standardized web DRM. It's an API to access DRM. Chrome/Firefox can use Widevine, but Safari will only use Apple FairPlay.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#824

Post by gsnedders »

baddox wrote: post #694
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're too quick to put DRM and WebAssembly in the same bucket. Yes, WebAssembly could lead to a future of closed-source proprietary technology on the web (and in that sense is similar to DRM), but the difference is that WebAssembly offers technical value. WebAssembly is a tradeoff for the public, whereas DRM exists strictly to restrict the public.

I don't really see any new threat from WebAssembly. Isn't the only threat that the same malicious code can run with better performance than JavaScript? As far as I can tell, WebAssembly doesn't provide any additional access to native system features like this DRM spec does.

WASM is strictly less powerful than JS.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#825

Post by floatboth »

thuuuomas wrote: post #610

Netflix is money, but the real DRM atrocities will surface in the ed-tech long tail.

That would suck, but EME has existed for several years (and Silverlight/Flash DRM before that) and I don't think the educational course providers ever embraced DRM??

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#826

Post by floatboth »

5ilv3r wrote: post #68
Fej wrote: post #36

On one hand, this is terrible for freedom in our software; on the other, this isn't the "death of the open Web" that some are proclaiming. The media groups want DRM and they will get it. This doesn't mean that we are going to lose all freedom on the Web. It's a step in that direction, certainly, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

It is already very difficult to distribute your own content without subjecting it to some other entity's distribution system, and soon it will be impossible. Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content, and then the death of the free web will be complete.

> Chrome and friends will refuse to load unsigned content

This statement is SO RIDICULOUS it just broke my brain. How?! Why?!

Even the evil movie companies don't want to prevent you from sharing your home video online.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#827

Post by floatboth »

mickronome wrote: post #524
kibwen wrote: post #284

Remember the corporate sponsors of the original EME proposal in 2012: Google, Microsoft, and Netflix https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/

It's weird to see Netflix there, as their service might be one of the premier reasons lots of people can't be bothered to copy movies as much as used to be the case. The only reasons I can see is that studios/rights owners are either requiring DRM for newest titles, or that they offer rebates on DRM'd material. They rights owners also probably prefer other people to run their errand, as some of them aren't too popula…

Weird? Netflix is one of the only users of EME. Movie rights owners require DRM, Netflix distributes their content, Netflix wants a more standardized way than Silverlight.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#828

Post by Aissen »

Buge wrote: post #771
flukus wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They don't block (anymore) they just offer a degraded experience, 720p resolution only. Piracy still offers a superior product.

That's not degraded only for Linux. The 720p limitation in Chrome and Firefox is also there for Windows and Mac.

Not Win10 + Edge or on ChromeOS. This is due to the level of obfuscation of the keys (hardware-assisted vs software only).

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#829

Post by floatboth »

xvilka wrote: post #613
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that being "hard to save and distribute" means it doesn't work. It has to be more than hard. Piracy release groups enjoy "hard", and you only have to do the hard part once for a given title (or usually, for a given DRM technology). Once you strip it of its protection, you throw it online and anyone can download it. And now that you've broken that particular DRM technology, your results are repeatable a…

This is where technologies like TrustZone, Intel ME, Intel SGX, SecureBoot comes - you will have isolated environment, while DRM will be run in another chip or execution level. So you will need either elevate your privilegies via vulnerability, or via hardware reversing techniques. And it is already happening. Computers arent that open anymore, they became walled gardens already.

Yeah, it is creepy that ME/PSP has full control over modern x86 computers. But that's not about DRM — blame enterprise IT management stuff (Intel AMT).

Apparently ME is somehow used on the DRM path but really it's kinda irrelevant — the whole point of modern movie DRM is that the video frames get decrypted on your display.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#830

Post by VarFarYonder »

James Mickens gave an interesting talk on what we could do to build a better browser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uflg7LDmzI

I'm hoping that WebAssembly might be a route towards allowing something like this to happen. If an alternative to HTML/CSS/JS could be developed in WebAssembly, then we could have a situation where HTML has competition, rather than being the only way to build a website. And browsers can become simpler as the rendering duties are moved out of the browser and to the website itself.

Post reply on HN