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

171–180 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#171

Post by UIZealot »

chime wrote: post #114
Lewisham wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> XMLHttpRequest... made the web of today suck significantly less.

I would argue the exact opposite.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#173

Post by xj9 »

jshen wrote: post #161
xj9 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I'm not particularly familiar with DRM apart from not liking it. What exactly does flash do that makes the DRM-loving lawyers consider it acceptable? From my point of view the kind of control offered by HTTPS and normal browser authentication is enough but the MPAA and RIAA (or the BBC, for that matter) clearly don't agree.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#174

Post by charlieok »

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 in this scenario, what is the “decryption module” likely to be? Software you download? Software that comes with the OS? Hardware baked into the chip or motherboard?

What would prevent determined users from reading, and publishing, any “secret” keys used by such a decryption module? I'm assuming the answer is nothing, since this seems to have happened with every DRM scheme that has been tried.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#175

Post by takluyver »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #81
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…

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?

If it's easy to pirate, then Joe Bloggs rents a movie, copies it and shares it with all his mates at work. They know him, so they trust that they're not getting viruses, and they're not worried about being caught, because they're just copying it off a USB stick. A couple of them pass it on to some other friends. Or at least, that's what the content producers think will happen.

DRM drives people to pirate websites instead of that, with the associated risks of dodgy downloads and being tracked. Additionally, the content producers can apply pressure to search engines, domain registrars and ad providers to keep the site on the back foot, so links will break. Faced with that, at least some of Joe's friends will cough up to get their movies legally. Especially now that content providers are finally starting to get the idea of providing content cheaply and conveniently.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#176

Post by takluyver »

analog wrote: post #150
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…

It's easy enough to copy a stream with DRM. Point your camcorder at your laptop stream, press record on your camcorder, press play on your laptop.

It takes ~2 hours to play the film, you can't make any noise in the room during that time, and the resulting picture and sound quality will be terrible unless you've got very expensive recording equipment. Content producers would love to get to the point where that's the only way to 'copy' films.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#177

Post by mayanksinghal »

UIZealot wrote: post #171
chime wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> XMLHttpRequest... made the web of today suck significantly less. I would argue the exact opposite.

I am curious. What are your arguments?

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#178

Post by takluyver »

samworm wrote: post #4
samarudge wrote: post #3

First you have to understand that not all of the content broadcast on the BBC is created by the BBC. They carry programs made by independent, limited, for-profit studios. They also regularly carry movies. All of which they put up on their iPlayer service. As an example, you can currently watch Madagascar, in full, for free on BBC iPlayer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gd77z/Madagascar/ ). While there is an…

My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the cont…

The counterargument is that, if you canvassed license fee payers, I bet more of them would care about seeing Madagascar without ads than about DRM issues. So should the BBC pursue what a small number of people loudly claim to be the 'public interest', or should they aim for what the public is interested in?

Thinking more strategically, the BBC needs some high profile popular things, including imported movies, to keep people on side. If they lose their popularity, it's only a matter of time before a politician wins votes by promising to slash the license fee.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#180

Post by chime »

UIZealot wrote: post #171
chime wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> XMLHttpRequest... made the web of today suck significantly less. I would argue the exact opposite.

If you've upvoted or downvoted anyone here on HN, you have benefited from XMLHttpRequest.
Post reply on HN