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

151–160 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#151

Post by mcintyre1994 »

yk wrote: post #102
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…

A few question about the EME proposal: > BTW, open source browsers can easily implement this spec since it doesn't require the browser to implement a "decryption module" themselves. Does this mean, that the 'decryption module' is necessary closed source? And from the spec: >4.1 "Secure proof of key release must necessarily involve the CDM due to the relative ease with which scripts may be modified. The CDM must provi…

> Does this mean, that the 'decryption module' is necessary closed source?

Is there any precedent of anything being closed source behind standards implementations from the W3C? That seems unlikely, this seems terrible.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#152

Post by taligent »

mmastrac wrote: post #133
gph wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but my point is different than a cracked version leaking into bittorrent. That doesn't have a drastically large footprint. If they streamed videos with no-DRM, everyone with a subscription would easily grab a copy of whatever they want. And all it would take is copying a file and sharing it with friends/family to have it spread. This might not seem like a huge difference, but honestly I think it would be. It wou…

How would they? Even ripping DRM-free YouTube videos is beyond most people. I don't see YouTube piracy as a big world problem.

>I don't see YouTube piracy as a big world problem.

That's because YouTube content can be trivially shared with other people.

Stop the sharing and pretty sure you would start to see piracy.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#153

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nnnnni wrote: post #79
takluyver wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

get_iplayer still works? I thought that it stopped working years ago!

Still works, though development has moved on from the original guy.

Relevant bit from the new projet's website:

"DRM

get_iplayer does not circumvent any digital rights management security (see the BBC’s website on how to do that with the Windows-only DRM content they provide). get_iplayer does not circumvent any effective technological measures. The BBC does not implement any such measures. They use RTMP which is a streaming protocol now publicly published by Adobe. Sometimes they use RTMP ‘SWF verification’ which has proven to be ineffective in its current BBC implementation (flvstreamer cannot handle such verification requests so the stream is dropped and is then automatically resumed). The iPhone streams are also unprotected and use plain progressive download HTTP protocol. The WMA and realaudio streams and likewise unprotected. The BBC may at some point choose to effectively protect their streams with DRM or some ‘effective technological measure’ in which case get_iplayer will no longer be a useful tool for those streams. The BBC do implement DRM on their Adobe Air downloadable files and therefore get_iplayer is not useful with those. The BBC iPlayer TV only works in the UK so that they can limit the reach of their output to UK TV Licence fee payers who fund iPlayer (although legally you do not require a licence to watch non-live iPlayer output)."

http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html

So all the many comment in this thread about what the BBC could not do without DRM seem to be contradicted by the facts. All the BBC need is something that claims to be DRM but really isn't.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#154

Post by lukifer »

grhino wrote: post #58
PavlovsCat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 real…

Afaik, Netflix Silverlight and FairPlay for video have not been circumvented (correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to liberate my iTunes purchases).

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#155

Post by EdiX »

jshen wrote: post #118
ajb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think much of slippery slope arguments.

They are already closing the "analog loophole" everywhere else with HDCP and DRM enabled theater projectors, it's pretty clear that's where "content owners" want to be.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#157

Post by Flenser »

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…

Will EMEs be a new attack surface for security exploits? Who will be creating them and will we be able to rely on them to fix bugs responsibly and in a timely manner?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#158

Post by icebraining »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #119
icebraining wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

I didn't say it wasn't a choice; but it's also a privilege, and I find that important to point out. As for the UN declaration, it's a nice document, but it's also very inconsistent, as most declarations which include positive rights usually are.

Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.

It's not your stuff; nobody hacked into your computer to get it. You gave or sold it to someone else. Besides, property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things. It makes no sense when applied to effectively unlimited elements.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#159

Post by jshen »

EdiX wrote: post #155
jshen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think much of slippery slope arguments. They are already closing the "analog loophole" everywhere else with HDCP and DRM enabled theater projectors, it's pretty clear that's where "content owners" want to be.

That is not what the bbc is asking for here!
Post reply on HN