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

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#111

Post by ferongr »

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…

Content decryption modules are plugins by another name. The spec gives no guarantee that a given CDM can be interoperable with all browsers (being a binary it can possible arbitrarily reject to operate with a given browser), Operating system (because it's a binary) or that all browser functions and accessibility features will work with them (CDMs could completely bypass the browser's rendering pipeline and overlay the content using protected paths).

The proposal is a step back for the openness and interoperability of the Web. Substituting plugins with binary CDMs is not progress and I doubt any kind of popular content which rights are held by the big copyright giants will be compatible with clearkey.

I foresee that GNU/Linux users will be shafted and will not be able to access DRM'ed content and the proposal is toxic towards the Web.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#112

Post by Lewisham »

chime wrote: post #108
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…

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. I fail to see the technical reason why encryption is necessary for Netflix. HTML5 is a…

> The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today.

And when we live in your Star Trek-style technoutopia, then we won't have to worry about business concerns in specs. Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#113

Post by Lukeas14 »

chime wrote: post #108
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…

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. I fail to see the technical reason why encryption is necessary for Netflix. HTML5 is a…

The media companies know we'll always eventually be able to bypass any DRM they place on their media. But they still feel obligated to use it, partly for legal reasons. If they make their content available through a completely unrestricted video stream and then try to sue someone who infringes on their copyright, the defense's first question will be "well if you didn't want someone copying your content why didn't you place any of the available restrictions on it?" I don't think this would be a valid argument but it's not a risk many media companies would probably want to take.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#114

Post by chime »

Lewisham wrote: post #112
chime wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. I fail to see the technical reason why encryption is necessary for Netflix. HTML5 is a…

> The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. And when we live in your Star Trek-style technoutopia, then we won't have to worry about business concerns in specs. Specs have had business concerns in them since... ever.

I agree with you that business needs give rise to specs. That's pretty much how most of the specs are born. MS wanted to make Outlook Web Access behave more like the desktop version and came up with XMLHttpRequest - which went into the spec and made the web of today suck significantly less. That wasn't my point.

I'm talking about adding in mechanisms to support restrictions because of current legal situation. If you add in extensions that help DRM video, why not start adding in support for extensions that can prevent SSN or medical history from being displayed on the screen unless the local machine sends a valid fingerprint signature to the server? Of course that sounds ridiculous. Something like that doesn't belong in the spec. I fail to see the difference between that and EME.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#115

Post by lucian1900 »

gph wrote: post #101
dlitz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. Seems to be working out pretty well for Hulu/Netflix. Or is releasing your $100 million budget film DRM-Free onto the internet now profitable??

Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#116

Post by chime »

Lukeas14 wrote: post #113
chime wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're going to transition to a plug-in free web then we need HTML5 video to support these extensions. The first part does not imply the second. I know there are legal/licensing reasons for encryption but technology that is going to run the world of tomorrow should not be encumbered because of contractual obligations of today. I fail to see the technical reason why encryption is necessary for Netflix. HTML5 is a…

The media companies know we'll always eventually be able to bypass any DRM they place on their media. But they still feel obligated to use it, partly for legal reasons. If they make their content available through a completely unrestricted video stream and then try to sue someone who infringes on their copyright, the defense's first question will be "well if you didn't want someone copying your content why didn't you…

> If they make their content available through a completely unrestricted video stream

That was my point. Why is it completely unrestricted? How hard is it to check a cookie and 401 if I'm not logged in? And if someone can fake an HTTPS cookie, they can do a lot more damage than download a video.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#117

Post by gph »

lucian1900 wrote: post #115
gph wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Seems to be working out pretty well for Hulu/Netflix. Or is releasing your $100 million budget film DRM-Free onto the internet now profitable??

Netflix requires a subscription to stream. DRM is irrelevant.

Care to elucidate that point?

So if netflix streamed their content with no-DRM (which none of the content companies they license from would allow, but we'll skip that fact) you assume no one would just get a subscription, copy their entire catalouge, and freely distribute it? Doesn't sound like a very sustainable business model to me...

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#118

Post by jshen »

ajb wrote: post #92
jshen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think much of slippery slope arguments.

That aside, not having DRM for html5 would likely do more harm to the open web than not doing it. Take ABC for example, they only let you view their content through flash or through a native app. This hurts the open web more than giving them DRM in html5.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#119

Post by PavlovsCat »

icebraining wrote: post #71
PavlovsCat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artist they exploited, there was an artist signing a contract. Are they just that stupid, do they feel forced by the uncertainty of their profession? Etc. But to just pretend content providers are sitting on something that ought to be free is bullshit. And I say th…

That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting. s/choice/privilege/g

And what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you had a point, and it was a privilege and not a right [1], that would simply mean I made a choice based on that privilege, it doesn't mean "that choice wasn't actually a choice, it was a privilege". You know, just because you can feed something into a computer doesn't mean a thinking human would buy it.. I might as well quote you and prepend "if (1 == 2)", there is endless derpy fun to be had there, but I'll pass.

[1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Article 27

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

You might point out that those rights seem to contradict each other, and of course it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But privilege? Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.

Post reply on HN