Live data from Hacker News

BBC demands DRM for HTML5

boingboing.net

181–190 of 213 posts

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#181
post #173
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In flash, the bits that are coming down over HTTPS are DRMed. If you save them to your local disk you can't play it directly.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#182
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could copy their entire catalog now, if I wanted to. It would only be very slightly harder because of the DRM.

Yea, you could. But, you aren't going to first of all. And secondly you are a drop in the bucket. Even if you put it on all the bittorrent trackers it's still not a dent in their overall market share. But if every subscriber could simply right-click on download because they have ZERO DRM that would be very different. I won't drone on because I already stated my case to another comment. I don't see why you guys keep p…

YouTube videos are trivial to copy, but you can't right-click on them to download. The thing is, you are holding a mathematically untenable position here.

In order to allow someone to consume your encrypted content, you must give them a valid decryption key, in some form. If you can view the content, it is literally impossible to prevent a determined user from copying it, either digitally or through the analog hole. In current computer systems there is no way to prevent making a high-quality digital copy of an encrypted media stream.

Also, since we've developed a network to propagate information around the planet at a terrific rate, that one determined user's ability to share that content is limited only by the number of people who [a] are interested in the content and [b] have the (lesser) technological skill required to obtain a copy, via file sharing networks or sneakernet.

DRM is pure snake oil. It does not and can not do anything to prevent content distribution. The only possible outcome is to inconvenience legitimate use -- thus degrading the value of your product versus the pirated media. You're already competing with "free", you might want to avoid stacking the deck further against yourself.

The ultimate conclusion here is that enforcing copyrights on digital works is impossible. It's not practical to close the digital hole, and impossible to close the analog one. I'm sorry if that impacts your business model.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#183
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies.

Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move away from browsers to native apps. Users will go where the content is, no matter how vigorously you shout your ideology.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#184
post #183
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at ABC as an example. You can watch their video content via a Flash plugin, or via a native app for IOS. They do not let you watch their content via a browser without Flash. This is fairly common for media companies. Now think of the implications of not having EME. It creates a situation that pushes users away from the open web and onto native apps and proprietary plugins. EME is needed so that users don't move…

Aren't those plugins used already by those who rely on DRM? So what do you prefer, to make DRM (a dying unethical trend) part of the HTML5, or to retain its area of influence to plugins? Users know that plugins should be better avoided. They represent external, not very trustworthy entities for the web experience. This goes along with DRM which should be avoided for similar reasons. Pushing DRM into the browsers would only obscure this matter. EME is therefore not serving any good purpose for the open web and should be opposed. It's not like users who use DRM will suddenly get pushed into plugins or external applications. They already use them! And those who don't use and don't want to use DRM don't need that junk in the browser.

And for publishers it should be a lesson to stop using all that DRM for good if they want to be part of the open web.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#185
post #101
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??

I'm confused why anyone would think it would make it more profitable. You do understand that any content which is unencrypted is mind-numbingly simple to copy, right? That's how bits work. If you think DRM stops any copying or piracy for digital media, you're very confused on how technology works.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#186
I would like to put aside the fact about DRM and how I do not agree with what it represents. What upsets me here, is the article it self. It is very sloppy, no thought in it, no details. Basically worth of a tweet. I would really enjoy if people would put more time and work into what they are publishing.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am curious. What are your arguments?

Likely referring to web-apps that require Javascript support and have no fail over code.

This is more a problem with the developer of said site and not an issue with XMLhttprequest as you can build apps that are progressively enhanced for it and don't fail completely when JS/XMLHTTP is disabled.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#188
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

HN doesn't use XMLHttpRequest. View source to see that.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#189
post #121

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…

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…

DRM is not meant to stop the flow of content to thepiratebay, and never has been. Its purpose is to stop casual sharing, enforce region restrictions, and encourage repurchases. That's all.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#190

I'm confused. Doesn't this book by Cory have DRM? http://www.amazon.com/Homeland-ebook/dp/B00AEC8O2K If he's so hot on this issue, why is he selling his creativity with DRM, thereby hurting open standards which don't support it?

That's a condition of selling on the Amazon platform. Doctorow also makes his most of his books available on his site, for free even, under a Creative Commons license in basically every format imaginable, eg: http://craphound.com/down/download.php
Post reply on HN