I would never you a browser that had a "Sorry, cannot perform that operation now" dialog box (as many DVD players do to keep you from skipping pre-roll advertising.
BBC demands DRM for HTML5
51–60 of 213 posts
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't. DRM relies on obfuscation, and open source software obviously can't have that. They'll probably write a horribly insecure Silverlight plugin that will be cracked in a matter of minutes. ED: It looks like they'll have a "plugin" that does authentication with a remote server, and then decodes the frames sent to it. The browser displays them, or the DRM removal software sniffs the keys and decrypts the cont…
So why can't the browser save the frames then? That's not DRM.
The proposal is (probably by design) very vague at this moment but it's possible the platform-specific CDM binary could bypass the browser completely and paint a programmatically inaccessible overlay over the video element, using standard OS protected paths.
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the browser is an open stack. There are many layers interacting from the network protocols up to the rendering and scripting engines, and they are all open. The implementations are generally open, but more importantly it's possible to look into the data itself. You can see why this is a problem for DRM. To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source…
To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys,…
YARLY! If you encrypt content, it's not DRM-protected. When you use a normal everyday encryption solution, you send me the encrypted data, encrypted with my public key and I decrypt it with my private key and then I CAN DO WHAT I WANT with it. That is what the entertainment companies want to protect against - the ability to move the plain bits once you have them decrypted. With any open-source software, you can change it to do whatever you want with the decrypted bits. Honestly, the only way for them to get what they want is to have a piece of special hardware, which you install in your pc, that does decryption of the media and outputs it only via secure connection to an a/v setup that contains a camera which does facial recognition to make sure only you are sitting in front of the PC.
Fortunately, that's still a bit too expensive to consider. Also, it will be broken by the first bored hacker with a soldering iron.
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#54I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users. I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the boa…
"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be conce…
We like content. There is a business model that (most people agree) makes it so more content is created.
You are saying "why should we care about that business model being wiped out" [1], and the reason is because most people agree that that business model makes it so more content is created, which is what we want.
To convince us that we in fact shouldn't care, convince us either that:
1. Content (of similar quantity and quality) will in fact still be created, in spite of that business model dying. You're not likely to convince people of this, I believe.
2. Content (of similar quantity and quality) will in fact sill be created, because another business model will take its place.
[1]: Not a direct quote.
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#55First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-profit studios. They also regularly carry movies. All of which they put up on their iPlayer service. As an example, you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/ ). While there is an…
I think everyone understands why these companies (including BBC) are pushing for DRM. That doesn't mean it's not evil. The larger issue here, expressed quite well by Doctorow, is that this push requires converting the web into a closed platform. It's clear why entertainment companies want to turn the internet into something that can only be consumed by, say, the Apple app store. That's also the reason why this will n…
The web is still open by default and can always be made more closed by deliberate action, just like Flash is closed by default and can always be made more open by deliberate action.
People have implemented crypto algorithms in JS for over a decade which would enable this kind of thing if you really wanted to. DRM is just formalising it and again is not the default for video or audio.
(BTW I already posted BBC's position on this last week - no response http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5200917)
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#56I used to work for one of these companies in exactly such a role. Initially my mission in standardization bodies was to look after consumer rights, but it changed to accommodation of IPR patents in the DRM field. There is a group of about 200 professionals in the DRM field, mostly former engineers (that have little grasp outside their expertise) and lawyers that work for companies with significant patent portfolios i…
Could we get the names of these people? So that they can be rightfully shunned into quitting their quest against civilization and progress?
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#57We need a standard for DRM for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Otherwise they will forever use Flash or Silverlight. How can anyone argue against it? Content providers must protect their content from being stolen. Do you want to make an app and everyone steals it and doesn't pay for it? Probably not.
I've got a standard for DRM: don't use it. It's easy, cheap and doesn't require any laws or draconian software requirements on end users. I've been using this DRM standard for decades, and yet the people who make the software I use and the music and movies I enjoy are still rolling in dough!
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we can outlaw DRM and put evolutionary pressure on the content providers and emasculate the gatekeepers.
And what would the result be? Everybody gets into bed with advertising, all the time? Why not simply make DRM super simple, kinda like adding an IMG tag to webpage is now? Then artists etc. can become the content providers, decide themselves what they want to offer and how much it would cost, and the audience in turn can decide wether that is fair or a ripoff. That'd be evolution worth talking about.. But if you just…
AFAIK, all popular DRM schemes have been circumvented. In principle, any DRM scheme can be circumvented unless the hardware that decrypts the content (and therefore holds the private key in memory) self-destructs when tampered with.
This is a battle that content providers want to win. They can always find some plucky technologist saying that have an unbreakable DRM scheme. In the end, the question is whether DRM really needs to be there to keep honest people honest.
The idea that content providers think that there is this some untapped boon of cash from high school, college age, and 20 somethings who are doing the bulk of the pirating.
I do not want DRM to mean all media players have to be locked down proprietary software with the security enhanced only through obscurity. I don't mind there being a lock to remind honest people to be honest, but I don't like the idea of content providers bestowing upon a lucky few technology companies gatekeeper rights. It's not even in the interest of the content providers.
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#59Personally, I'm ok with the simple DRM scheme, where javascript can pass a decryption key into the video tag. Throw in a few extra features, like a header at the start of the file telling the browser to only play the video file on supported domains (to prevent websites that steal by embedding) and disable saving the move to disk.
To the content companies, it will be a lot better than nothing. It gives the same level of protection against casual copying as the more complex scheme, and absolutely every browser can support it.
The more complex scheme is an absolute nightmare, essentially bringing us back to the proprietary plugins (like flash) we have worked so hard to get away from. And it won't even work, there is no way they can stop proficient users from ripping the streams. This scheme will be cracked in a few weeks after it is released.
Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
To "properly" lock it down, you'd have to close the entire stack, and then you'd have to outlaw open source implementations. ORLY? How does encryption work then? One could say "in order to properly encrypt your stuff, you actually need to make sure nobody is outside your window with binoculars", but that's not the job of encryption is it. I guess it would ultimately boil down to possession of private and public keys,…
Yes, really. Encryption in the browser today works exactly the other way around. It's sole purpose is to ensure data integrity on my behalf as things are transmitted between me and my chosen endpoint. The endpoint is not protected from me, and I can do whatever I want with this data once it arrives in my browser. DRM would be the antithesis of that. The problem is not they keys, it's what they keys can control or not…
That you'd need a closed source browser or plugin to access the draconian DRM content that insists on protecting the render path wouldn't mean anyone would have to consume said DRM content, or use such a browser for anything else. As you said, they could as well "put out an app", they already do; and adding a "content protection provider", a black box ultimately, to a browser just turns that browser into that app. But, and that's kind of my point, it doesn't affect my browser in any way I can discern, at worst it would mean somtimes seeing "sorry, your browser (or lack of plugins/dongle/whatever) does not support playback of this content", as opposed to that page not being there in the first place.