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

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#161

Post by jshen »

xj9 wrote: post #138
jshen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't trying to "properly" lock it down. They are trying to bring html5 up to the same level as current flash based solutions.

I'm pretty sure you can do that already. HTTP has authentication, HTTPS gives you content encryption, rate limiting can prevent content scraping, I mean if you really wanted to you could do something with canvas (the hardware acceleration stuff that's being worked on could even make it perform fairly well, I suppose). Its not the same way but it could give the same result.

You can't do it already. What you described is not the same level as current flash solutions.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#162

Post by ferongr »

trunnell wrote: post #140
ferongr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Content decryption modules probably won't be plug-ins. > The spec gives no guarantee that a given CDM can be interoperable with all browsers. I'm not sure if the CDM is actually part of the spec. They are in the diagram for illustrative purposes. The APIs being proposed on the media element are agnostic to the type of CDM being used. > The proposal is a step back for the openness and interoperability of the Web. If y…

>I'm not sure if the CDM is actually part of the spec. They are in the diagram for illustrative purposes. The APIs being proposed on the media element are agnostic to the type of CDM being used.

The spec may not have specifics on the CDMs themselves but that doesn't really matter. A closed-source, platform specific CDM (e.g. one distributed with Windows containing keys for the major media distribution behemoths) is very bad for interoperability. Such kinds of CDMs will probably not find their way to GNU/Linux of BSDs.

>If you include video from Amazon, HBO Go, Netflix, and others in your definition of "the Web"

The Web is the platform itself, not the services offered over it in my book. Companies and business models rise and die all the time but the platform of Web is what remains behind. It should not be saddled by companies like Netflix that use it and try to influence its direction to further their interests. And there is no open door for open-source, CDMs on open-source systems without a "Protected Media Path" or similar.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#163

Post by brigade »

jedberg wrote: post #122
comex wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple question: Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? I don't think it has any chance - DRM on PCs is always pretty quickly bypassed - which is why it frustrates me so: it will likely end up preventing Linux users from accessing content legitimately, or Mac users from AirPlaying content to their TVs, with no actual benefit against piracy . At least where it pert…

> Do you think EME is actually going to prevent Netflix shows from showing up on thepiratebay? No, and that isn't the purpose. The purpose is so that Netflix can show you movies that Hollywood lawyers insist be encumbered with DRM because they won't try and understand that DRM doesn't actually do anything. Maybe one day Netflix will be big enough to push back, like Apple did with mp3 DRM, but until then, this is the…

Given that for EME to not be trivially bypassed, the CDM has to be a blob implementing its own decoders, how is this significantly different than Flash or Silverlight binary plugins?

Why would whoever's developing these CDMs (each individual site I'd assume?) suddenly invest the resources into providing Linux versions?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#164

Post by lambda »

gph wrote: post #117
lucian1900 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Of course someone would do that; even with DRM, people have done that. What content is available on Netflix that is not available on The Pirate Bay?

DRM has completely failed at preventing people from pirating content; and yet, companies selling content seem to be doing plenty well at it. Why do we keep insisting that DRM is necessary or else people will pirate all of the content, and thus making our software and standards more complex, more flaky, and work against the interests of users, when the existence of piracy is obviously not destroying the content providers now?

You know what's preventing them from making more money? The fact that because of complex licensing schemes, DRM, and the like, I can't be guaranteed that if I buy content I can play it on the devices that I choose to use. If I pirate a video, I can play it anywhere. Content producers are shooting themselves in the foot because of their fear of piracy; piracy works better than buying the content directly, and will continue to do so as long as they insist on DRM.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#165

Post by trunnell »

makomk wrote: post #142
trunnell wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is precisely DRM. The entire point of it is to protect media streams from copying, and the BBC has specifically demanded that it be robust enough DRM enough to trigger anti-circumvention laws and allow them to have anyone who does manage to copy the decrypted streams arrested and jailed.

EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big difference if you want to implement this spec in a browser.

Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix.

It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in the article.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#166

Post by shmerl »

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…

1. DRM is unethical.

2. DRM is a dying trend.

3. DRM goes against the principles of the open Web which W3C is supposed to promote.

Given the above, it's not the business of W3C to promote DRM on the Web let alone to standardize it. Quite on the contrary, W3C should prevent DRM proliferation. And it's simply dumb to standardize the dying trends. Why doesn't someone propose to make Flash a Web standard for example? It's still widely used, but it's a dying trend for the Web.

> 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.

See the W3C mail list. It is about putting DRM in the browsers. The language was watered down on purpose, but it doesn't change the reality.

The bottom line - those who think they need DRM - let them stick with what they have. Those who want to move to open web - don't need plugins and don't need DRM either.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#167

Post by shmerl »

trunnell wrote: post #165
makomk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is precisely DRM. The entire point of it is to protect media streams from copying, and the BBC has specifically demanded that it be robust enough DRM enough to trigger anti-circumvention laws and allow them to have anyone who does manage to copy the decrypted streams arrested and jailed.

EME merely allows access to a DRM system. I know this distinction sounds overly precise, but the fact that EME does not mandate a DRM system makes a big difference if you want to implement this spec in a browser. Were EME to actually specify the DRM then this spec would never have been jointly proposed by Google, Microsoft, and Netflix. It is an effective but incorrect bit of rhetoric when Cory equates EME to DRM in…

It's all just an empty demagogy in lawyers style. EME is about DRM, but the language was made generic to avoid mentioning DRM. So to make things fair and clear - EME is intended to serve the cause of those who push DRM on the Web. And it's enough of a reason to oppose EME.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#168

Post by shmerl »

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…

Netflix doesn't deserve respect for obliging the movie industry in pushing DRM to the Web.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#169

Post by duaneb »

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…

So, if these decryption modules are already in the OS, what's to stop people from straight up ripping the streams?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#170

Post by duaneb »

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…

> a technology that is decidedly against the public interest.

Hey, not all of us believe that. I'm perfectly fine with putting DRM on streaming video; I certainly don't expect to be able to download all of netflix to my computer for one month's subscription. It's much more of an issue when I pay full price for a movie (after pressing the "Purchase" button) and I find I don't actually own it.

Post reply on HN