W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns • Hacker News Board

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#861

Post by zentiggr » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:16 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #749

onion2k wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So in other words, no this isn't yours, we're going to decide if you can have it.

NIMBY.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#862

Post by driverdan » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:17 PM UTC

yakubin wrote: post #593

driverdan wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It harms anyone who wants to use streaming content offline on devices they control. I often have slow internet access in my home which limits my ability to stream. If I can download when I have a good connection I can view later when my connection goes to shit. This is not an option with most streaming services (eg Netflix). I pay for these services. I should have control of how and when I view the content.

Netflix allows you to download videos. I've watched several episodes of Star Trek on a train this way.

Not on desktop. I hate watching movies and TV on a small phone screen.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#863

Post by zentiggr » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #838

admax88q wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

DMCA has no reach outside of USA.

Well, it didn't until TPP, and what's to stop more agreements pushed through closed channels to make it truly global?

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#864

Post by Mindwipe » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:35 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #650

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…

I paid for spotify. Then they cut 10% of the music I listen to. Then they did that what seemed like every month until I cancelled. If the social contract for DRM was "subscribe to a growing library of content for an inflation-adjusted rate", that'd be fine. Instead, the contract is "cede all your rights until there are no technological alternatives and a few monopolies own the whole market". Not cool. I'd love to see…

> If the social contract for DRM was "subscribe to a growing library of content for an inflation-adjusted rate", that'd be fine. Instead, the contract is "cede all your rights until there are no technological alternatives and a few monopolies own the whole market".

Hacker News everyone, where one week the film companies are evil because they won't give Netflix all their content so people can have one streaming service and the next we have "monopolies own the whole market.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#865

Post by bzbarsky » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #746

ctrl-j wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The EFF wasn't pushing for "don't standardize EME". It was pushing for "add a clause to the EME standard that prevents it being abused in certain specific user-hostile ways". In particular, it would prevent it being abused to prevent actions by users that are perfectly legal under existing copyright law.

This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance to discuss, but I don't see how misrepresenting the EFF's position helps the discussion in any way.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#866

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

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?

[deleted]

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#867

Post by DCKing » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #821

DCKing wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, everything can be hacked into a video on the web. But luckily that makes your web page unusable, unaccessible, and also un-SEO-able. It would also require you to have expensive DRM authoring tools to have you actually create DRM signatures (it's not just a switch you can flip on). Let me rephrase: EME can only be practically applied to actual audio and video.

The point still stands. EME has been commonplace for three years now. If the fear that it would grip beyond audio and video in the real world is based in reality, we would have seen it by now. The W3C decision changes nothing for the people who would use it.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#868

Post by athenot » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #796

tudorw wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to win that war, we should focus on content not technology, Mosaic got a lead in the game because, despite the 'techies' seeing no use for images, image support was added, with images came the transition of media, users were au fait with articles containing text and images and could now experience similar on line, this alone was not enough, content creators starting creating content that people wanted to c…

I don't see any way to win that war. The IP oligarchs have won it. They own the W3C now. But there is clearly a demand for DRM-free browsers. And if the worst fears are realized, and mainstream browsers won't display media without DRM, or become snooping devices for IP oligarchs, that demand will increase. Sure, it'll never be more than a niche, but DRM-free browsers will be there for those who want them.

There's an easy way to win that war: diversify the content you consume. If you're willing to step outside of the immensely popular, there are great treasures to be found.

IP owners are protecting their assets which are worth a lot. The irony is that the value of those assets come from us content consumers. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm a lot less interested in the local amateur hockey team than the national league team I follow. I chose to consume that brand. But I don't have to.

Yes I lament the loss of a vision for free-flowing information. But the society in which we live, unfortunately, values and protects powerful asset owners. Technology cannot fix a society problem.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#869

Post by cjsuk » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

alfredallan wrote: post #813

cjsuk wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Back in the dark ages, when the battle of www vs Gopher was still on, I sided heavily on the side of Gopher because it didn't get in the way of the content. Gopher was a means to navigate the maze of content and most of the content was textual, postscript and neatly typeset. You could sit down with it and read it focused or print it out. We've regressed to the point where 5KiB of text comes with 2MiB of crap…

This is why I usually use just lynx.

I would but hardly anything works in it which is the problem.

Re: W3C abandons consensus, standardizes DRM, EFF resigns

#870

Post by pornel » Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

It has always been like this (see browser wars, WHATWG).

In this case W3C is involved just as a tool. Microsoft/Netflix didn't need W3C for anything other than the brand name lending legitimacy to the spec they've designed and implemented before presenting it to the W3C, and didn't materially change it after.