Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC demands DRM for HTML5

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#81

Post by AnthonyMouse »

takluyver wrote: post #24
Benferhat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc) It's already trivial for regular users to download pirated data, even if only experts can get around the DRM to copy and release it[0] in the first place. Case in point: House of Cards. Fully, freely and easily available to Joe The Pirate Next Door Schmoe, now that some nerd (TRIC? BTN? ASAP? Immerse?) has gotten aro…

The DRM is just one part of a strategy to make it just sufficiently unattractive to get a pirated version. Users can be worried about being caught, about their computer getting viruses, or just be put off by ugly websites and interfaces (Joe Schmoe isn't going to use get_iplayer at the command line). If they can make pirated versions look shady and illicit, lots of people will be willing to pay a bit for an official…

How does one have anything to do with the other? Would there be fewer viruses (or less Hollywood propaganda about viruses) on pirate websites, or different legal risks (or propaganda about legal risks) in downloading from them if DRM didn't exist? How does it help Hollywood that you can't click "save as" on netflix.com after paying but you can still do it on any pirate website without paying?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#82

Post by edanm »

betterunix wrote: post #66
edanm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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." "Content" was created long before copyrights. Technology may have changed and opened the door to new kinds of entertainment, but if you are looking for an example of how entertainment might be created in the absence of copyright, you need look no fu…

If you want to convince me, show me where in history you have examples of content being created without copyrights, of the same quantity/quality. Obviously we'll have to normalize your data to the size of the population in the past, not to mention the amount of free time they had available.

And if you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you read about the history of copyrights. For example, in the 1800's there was a large debate about the values of copyrights in the British Parliament, which echoes a lot of the same arguments made today (even including a prediction of the kind of piracy we have today). One of the non-obvious points raised is that a model like you describe, e.g. most "normal" jobs where you get paid for your time/output, has some very undesirable properties. Specifically, not allowing for the "misunderstood genius" of people, but solely promoting popular content. The same kind of popular content you say is not of high quality, and which makes up a large proportion of content today, but definitely not everything.

I'm not saying there aren't other answers out there. I'm saying that dismissively saying "look at history" ironically ignores history - the systems in place today are the result of a lot of discoure on these subjects throughout history, and saying "let's just scratch what there is and start over" is about as smart as trashing a large software project and recoding from scratch. [1]

[1] For non-programmers: this is widely considered a very wrong thing to do.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#83

Post by gph »

betterunix wrote: post #80
gph wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they need to adapt their businesses to the realities of this century's technology. You say this like it's immensely easy. So say you're head of HBO's original programming dept. It can cost over 100 million dollars to produce one season of a quality show. You can only release it on a medium that allows it to be continuously and freely distributed. How do you make money? Ads and Product placement is about it. You rea…

"you're a f*ing lunatic if you think you can make money through any other method" [citation needed]

So there is another method of making money for Large Production Movie/T.V.? Please enlighten me.

My citation is reality. Take a look around.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#84

Post by gurkendoktor »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #37
Udo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm alarmed. They can lobby to outlaw owning or distributing DRM-free browsers, just like the push to make DVD-ripping technology illegal.

I am not convinced of this analogy. What is illegal is not copying data off DVDs, it is breaking the DRM to do so. The difference is not obvious because most DVDs are protected by DRM, but that is not true for websites.

As another example, Flash (which is being directly replaced here): Apple happily ships browsers without it, users are already used to a video not working every now and then, and no one has ever pushed to outlaw browsers without Flash.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#85

Post by lutusp »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #84
emiliobumachar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm alarmed. They can lobby to outlaw owning or distributing DRM-free browsers, just like the push to make DVD-ripping technology illegal.

I am not convinced of this analogy. What is illegal is not copying data off DVDs, it is breaking the DRM to do so. The difference is not obvious because most DVDs are protected by DRM, but that is not true for websites. As another example, Flash (which is being directly replaced here): Apple happily ships browsers without it, users are already used to a video not working every now and then, and no one has ever pushed…

> What is illegal is not copying data off DVDs, it is breaking the DRM to do so.

Not quite. Depending on the reason for making the copy, both may be illegal. Remember that copying a DVD for certain purposes was illegal before DRM even existed.

> The difference is not obvious because most DVDs are protected by DRM, but that is not true for websites.

So does that mean one may legally copy an entire Website and post it somewhere else? This is where the argument breaks down. DRM only adds to the roster of illegal acts, it doesn't mean something not protected by DRM is fair game.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#86

Post by trunnell »

Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... as are some of the comments in this thread.

Let's start with the facts. Here's the spec. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME).

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

The EME spec isn't that long, and the introduction has a nice diagram. Go check it out.

The W3C spec does not put "DRM in browsers." It allows browsers to use "decryption modules" that already exist elsewhere, like in the OS platform. There are APIs to determine what sorts of "decryption modules" are available and to use them to decrypt media.

If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. Sure, it'd be nice if the big media companies stopped insisting on using encryption to distribute their videos. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Premium video on the web requires either plug-ins or EME. I think most of us would pick premium web video + EME, rather than premium web video + plug-ins, or (perish the thought) no premium video on the web at all.

BTW, open source browsers can easily implement this spec since it doesn't require the browser to implement a "decryption module" themselves. Also, there is a mode called "clear key" that can be used if the underlying platform doesn't have any "decryption module" available.

Disclosure: I work at Netflix on streaming video in browsers.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#87

Post by wpietri »

lukifer wrote: post #5

I 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…

I think Netflix proves the opposite point: If it's easy enough to pay for content, people will do it.

There is nothing on Netflix I couldn't get via less legitimate means. And these days even technophobes know enough to type "downton abbey torrent" into Google. But they use Netflix because part of that $8/month goes to making it much easier, and a better viewing experience.

Netflix having DRM doesn't help Netflix or the users one whit. It just increases costs and reduces adoption among those who favor non-targeted platforms. It's just a pacifier for a small number of corporate executives.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#88

Post by rimantas »

onemorepassword wrote: post #47
PavlovsCat wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this push requires converting the web into a closed platform How so? It requires the ability to have "locked" content and a mechanism to "unlock" it, but how does this affect anything else? Honest question.

Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that adheres to the open standards. With DRM built in, you can adhere to the standards all you want, you still can't render all the content unless have access to the secret keys, which can only be granted to you by the powers-that-be. The only viable client-software will be that controlled by a few major companies in cahoots with the content-indust…

  > Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that
  > adheres to the open standards.
Actually, if your browser would only show that kind of content you wouldn't see much. Very little content on the web follows any standard at all.

  > Google, Microsoft and Apple together will decide how
  > we experience the web
You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

  > and they will dictate terms on the rest of us, tearing down whatever "open" is left.
  > Average users are not going to install an open, non-DRM client if that doesn't allow
  > them to use Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, BBC etcetera.
And there you have it: the amount of "whatever "open" left" is immensely bigger than all hulus and netflixes. I cannot see hulu and netflix anyway, does that mean I have no access to the open web already? What does it mean "non DRM" client anyway? The one that only shows DRM'ed content? Does this exist? Back in the days of ITMS selling DRMed audio content iTunes still could play any mp3 you threw at it, and it still can do the same today. Just because some client will allow you to play DRMed content it in no way means that it won't be able to play open content. And because of that all this outrage is quite moronic.

> If you think "open" will still play a role in that, you must haven been living under a rock > for the past 10 years. Even Google's love for "open" and "neutral" has been reduced to mostly marketing.

Yes, I do. Your argument is just stupid.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#89

Post by yk »

Drakim wrote: post #6

How exactly would DRM for HTML5 work? Couldn't I just fork Chronimum or Firefox and make the browser save the video content in a file rather than showing it?

Very simple, there will be a

  bitmap* decrypt_video(char* url, int intent);
somewhere in the source. If you intend to watch it, then you call it as

  content=decrypt_video(url, INTENTION_VIEW);
while in case of piracy you call it as

  content=decrypt_video(url, INTENTION_COPY);
The constants INTENTION_COPY and INTENTION_VIEW are just redefinition of the constants provided to implement RFC 3514 [1]. So it is easy to use on any system providing an standard compliant IP stack.

[1]https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

Post reply on HN