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

91–100 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#91

Post by dlitz »

trunnell wrote: post #86

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 mod…

> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top...

What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that is decidedly against the public interest.

I'm surprised that this is upvoted to the top of the thread, when you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is---as if the DRM's detractors don't already know what it is or how it works.

> 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.

That's only true because technologists continue to lie to media companies, telling them that DRM is feasible and not harmful to their interests (even though, in addition to being against the public interest, it tends to cause monopolization of their distribution chains---just ask the music industry happened with iTunes).

Look, these media companies are looking to us for advice; We're doing both them an ourselves a disservice by continuing to sell them DRM snake oil.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#92

Post by ajb »

jshen wrote: post #61
anonymous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chang…

Most entertainment companies accept the current flash based solutions as sufficient. In this case they are trying to bring html5 to te same level as flash.

And you expect them to stop there?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#93

Post by betterunix »

gph wrote: post #83
betterunix wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

We live in a world of government-granted monopolies given to companies like HBO. It is not terribly shocking that those monopolies lead to profits, and that companies that fail to take advantage of the copyright system would have trouble.

You are claiming, with no justification, that in the absence of copyright there would be no profit available for people who make entertainment. I am not really sure where you get that idea from. It is not too hard to imagine ways to monetize a TV show in the absence of copyright -- as a simple example, a studio could refuse to broadcast the next installment until enough people have paid.

There, you have a way to make money on TV without copyright. Now can we stop attacking the Internet and start embracing the reality of the 21st century?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#94

Post by trunnell »

dlitz wrote: post #91
trunnell wrote: post #86

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 mod…

> Wow, Cory's article is totally over the top... What makes you think it's over the top? We have a public-interest organization pushing DRM, a technology that is decidedly against the public interest. I'm surprised that this is upvoted to the top of the thread, when you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is---as if the DRM's detractors don't already know…

> you haven't done anything except say "this is over the top" and given us a link that explains what DRM is

The link is the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) spec. EME is not DRM. It allows access to a decryption system outside of the browser.

That is different than what Cory and others are claiming.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#95

Post by logn »

trunnell wrote: post #86

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 mod…

Thanks. I read the spec and saw this regarding open source browsers:

"9.5. Can I ensure the content key is protected without working with a content protection provider?

"No. Protecting the content key would require that the browser's media stack have some secret that cannot easily be obtained. This is the type of thing DRM solutions provide. [...] In addition, it is not something that fully open source browsers could natively support."

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#96

Post by jshen »

icebraining wrote: post #78
jshen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure something similar to Adobe Access can be implemented for html 5 without requiring us to close source browsers, or patent them. I fail to see why you think otherwise.

Because I still have faith that the W3C wouldn't sell out to a closed solution owned by a single company. We're talking about a web standard, not some company's broken software.

They aren't talking about using adobe's software. They want to do something similar for html5.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#97

Post by trunnell »

logn wrote: post #95
trunnell wrote: post #86

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 mod…

Thanks. I read the spec and saw this regarding open source browsers: "9.5. Can I ensure the content key is protected without working with a content protection provider? "No. Protecting the content key would require that the browser's media stack have some secret that cannot easily be obtained. This is the type of thing DRM solutions provide. [...] In addition, it is not something that fully open source browsers could…

Exactly. This illustrates why this W3C spec is not DRM. Some other DRM technology is needed for certain modes.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#98

Post by TravisLS »

betterunix wrote: post #77
paulhauggis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in unions then? Unions are pretty much the same thing. They inflate wages and force companies to pay workers a wage that would otherwise be much less. Unions have also prevented some jobs from being automated (IE: making them obsolete). "start talking about the possibility of completely upending the copyright system and replacing it with something that makes sense now that we have the Internet." If a c…

"If a company pours millions of dollars into something that many people enjoy, why shouldn't their works be protected?" Kodak poured millions of dollars into the film development system. Why shouldn't they have their revenue stream protected too? Why not freeze the progress of technology to ensure that no business ever becomes obsolete? We had entertainment before copyright. We will still have it afterwards.

This is a false analogy. Kodak's revenue stream was not protected, but people were prohibited from stealing their film. The film business disappeared because of alternatives that the market preferred.

The case of content is different. Free content is not taking much market share from professional producers. A small subset of people are illegally stealing professionally produced content via torrent sites, but that group is small enough that it's still economically viable to spend $50M to make a great movie.

If we eliminate copyright, that group grows large enough that nobody will spend $50M to make a movie, and the big-budget movie will disappear. The big-budget movies don't disappear because people don't want to see them, or because free content has displaced them in the market. They disappear because so many people steal the content against the wishes of the publisher, it's no longer economically viable to produce the content at all.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#99

Post by Myrmornis »

rimantas wrote: post #88
onemorepassword wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

Surely the implication was that Mozilla, and any other browser maker who does not or cannot support these locked-down content models, risk becoming irrelevant because the vast majority of people will use browsers that do support the protected content?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#100

Post by rayiner »

betterunix wrote: post #18
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…

"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…

All business models break down without law. You've just decided which laws you like and don't and which business models you like and don't. I disagree that renting bits is evil. I think selling out peoples privacy is evil. That's what has arisen instead because its impractical to rent bits. We're just arguing relative moral preferences at that point.
Post reply on HN