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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#851

Post by nf05papsjfVbc »

civilian wrote: post #446
objclxt wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Market share isn't immutable! Market share changes based on capabilities. I dropped IE for FF when I got a basic understanding of computers, I dropped FF when it became clear it was a memory hog, and now I kind of toggle between Chrome and FF. I think that, with killer features like breaking out of DRM, the market share could change.

Unless you value the fact that Firefox comes from an organisation which values the freedom of the user and are willing to tolerate a dip in quality (as perceived by the typical user, not a techie) compared to a product from an organisation which has far greater resources at its disposal, and unless a lot of other people are going to do the same, it'll never work.

I use Firefox and almost never use another browser but I'm afraid over time, it's share of the market will fall. This news makes me fear so even more. I do hope I am proven wrong though. I've seen one monopolist fall. I do hope I see many more.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#852

Post by hedonistbot »

victorNicollet wrote: post #759
Freak_NL wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> color onto the bits Does that mean (effectively) watermarking? Do pirated releases even come from (defeated) DRM sources these days?

I believe it's a reference to http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Just noticed the Terry Davis cameo in the comments with one of his random generated god quotes - http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23#terry-a-davis-1274100060

This article got even better.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#853

Post by ebcode »

kelvin0 wrote: post #464
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…

BBS on HAM Radio? I've been toying with the idea for a while. The exact stack is not clear yet, but it has to 'liberate' me from the current web/internet insanity. It could be slow and imperfect, but dammit it would be ours again.

Yes! sign me up. :)

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#854

Post by crummy »

noir_lord wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

DRM isn't about making things impossible to pirate, it's about making them harder to pirate.

IMO, some people will always pirate your movie/music/games/whatever. But if the crack lasts a few weeks, or if you have to unplug your DVD drive to get it to work, or if it's a low quality cam rip, or if all the good torrent sites have been shut down and now the last ones are infested with spyware, or if there's a risk of getting sued by the MPAA... all of these are factors that'll tilt the pirate vs buy decision.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#855

Post by cannonedhamster »

chris_wot wrote: post #843
cabalamat wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've regressed to the point where 5KiB of text comes with 2MiB of crap, meaning a noise to signal ratio of 26dB which is insane! Sadly the average clickbait article contains a lot less than 5000 characfters of actual text.

I don't see why these webpages need to be so huge. If websites used HTML5 properly and used CSS more extensively, a lot of the crap I feel could be removed. Seriously, aside from graphics and video, what is taking up the size of these pages? Mountains of JavaScript?

As someone who used to work for a web optimization company, yes mountains of Javascript. Javascript for analytics, javascript for transitions, javascript for DRM, javascript for updating pricing in real time, javascript for fonts, javascript for colors, javascript to lazy load the images....six different style sheets and images that are downloaded and resized client side...and this is just the navigation bar.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#856

Post by brockers »

holmb wrote: post #849
masswerk wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but isn't connecting to a web server by lynx illegal (considered "hacking") in some countries? I remember a case in the UK around the time of the London olympic games.

It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Consider the difference carrying a knife, being a hunter, and carrying a knife being a bankrobber and going into a bank to use it.

Oh it most certainly can... it SHOULDN'T but it absolutely can.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#857

Post by masswerk »

holmb wrote: post #849
masswerk wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but isn't connecting to a web server by lynx illegal (considered "hacking") in some countries? I remember a case in the UK around the time of the London olympic games.

It can never be illegal to use any tool. It is the intent and action carried out with the tool that decides whether it is illegal. Consider the difference carrying a knife, being a hunter, and carrying a knife being a bankrobber and going into a bank to use it.

Compare Linux Reviews, "Solaris-user arrested by British Police for using Lynx" -- http://linuxreviews.org/news/2005/01/28_0001/28_0001.html.en

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#858

Post by zachrose »

acdha wrote: post #773
eponeponepon wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

EME offers an interface to decode audio and video stream. How is what you're talking about even possible in that context?

Some kind of virtual webpage that's delivered over video?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#859

Post by rainbowmverse »

breck wrote: post #150
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the alternative isn't simply a world with no such limitations, but also a world with less content made available online. I don't buy this. Do you have data supporting this claim? Disclaimer: I am totally biased and think IP laws are morally wrong and a huge regressive tax on the poor.

IP laws are why rich and powerful media companies can't take my independent creations without compensation and profit off them without risk of a lawsuit. Copyright serves a valuable purpose, even if lobbyists and the big companies they serve seem to not understand (or care about) copyright's function.

Copyright is DRM without the D. It puts just enough friction on using my creations commercially to make them decide to pay me rather than risk consequences. I don't mind it going public domain after a while. I'm not greedy, and I understand that culture needs to be fed to continue producing more.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#860

Post by nindalf »

icebraining wrote: post #744
nindalf wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It makes it more expensive to use DRM.

This misses my point. No one cares about DRM - not the streaming service, or the browser vendors or most importantly, the users. Consumers have voted with their wallets on this - they'd rather watch Netflix than torrent.

Maybe I'm being callous, but I don't care much about "the ethical problem of pushing DRM". Nor do I care much about MIPS and SPARC. How many end users are running MIPS and SPARC anyway? And I especially don't care about it being difficult to use DRM. All of this sounds like ideological purity, which in my opinion, is a waste of time.

Post reply on HN