BBC demands DRM for HTML5 • Hacker News Board

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#191

Post by jshen » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 7:13 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #184

jshen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#192

Post by shmerl » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 8:23 AM UTC

jshen wrote: post #191

shmerl wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!

> Users will get pushed into native apps.

I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the users who you claim have no idea what's going on.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#193

Post by surrealize » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 10:18 AM UTC

DRM is not necessary for the web.

Some content owners say that it is. That's a lie.

High-definition digital video gets broadcast over the air in the clear all the time.

Content owners tried to get DRM (the broadcast flag) into over-the-air broadcasts, saying that that was the only way they would allow digital broadcasts. The broadcast flag failed, content owners caved, and now they're broadcasting everything in the clear.

The HTML5 encrypted media extensions are another iteration of the same thing. If we stand up to the content owners, they'll cave again, just like they did last time.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#194

Post by analog » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 11:15 AM UTC

takluyver wrote: post #176

analog wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right about the time it takes to copy. Whenever I've encoded video it's always been a time-consuming process so I wouldn't see this as a major obstacle.

As for picture and sound quality being terrible, simply not true. Recording from a projected image is one way to do telecine, and it works fine if you can set it up properly. [1] A half-decent telecine is very different from surreptitiously recording a film in a cinema.

The stream will be re-compressed but this isn't such an issue as many people think. Back when TV was recorded on analog tape in the 90s, you were allowed 8 generations of copying and it would still be considered acceptable for broadcast (for news).

[1] "The quality of a good telecine is generally comparable to a DVD without any post-processing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine_(copying)

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#195

Post by PavlovsCat » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 2:50 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #158

PavlovsCat wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection, nobody is entitled to me giving it up upon creation.

property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things

No. Copyright includes things such as me having a say wether my photo will be used to advertise rat poison or neonazis, or someone else claiming they made them etc. (if I can prove I am the author, they at least have to cease from that claim). I guess that's covered with "moral interests", not sure; but my point was simply this: that I give stuff away is a free choice. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone no matter how they got at it to do whatever they want with it, I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#196

Post by icebraining » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 4:12 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #195

icebraining wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection…

I, by default, have all rights to it

That's the UN's opinion, not divine law. But in any case, the article doesn't say we have the right copying. A system with attribution protection and mandatory profit sharing - but no copyright - would be enough.

If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone

It doesn't belong to anyone. A copy can be owned (by you, until you sell it or give it away); a photograph is a concept, an idea.

I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.

That's absolutely the point. The only reasonable justification for granting a monopoly over copying is because of the benefits to society. But the context has changed and deal stopped being fair a long time ago - if it ever was.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#197

Post by jedberg » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

brigade wrote: post #163

jedberg wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Google owns this company: http://www.widevine.com

Which already has a linux plugin. That is why they are pushing for the standard as well.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#198

Post by jshen » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 5:52 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #192

jshen wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users will get pushed into native apps. Normal users don't know or care what DRM is. They click on a link to some video they want to watch from ABC, and if they are on a mobile device they are told they have to download the free app to watch it. They do, cause they want to want to watch, and we just helped push users off the open web!

> Users will get pushed into native apps. I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the…

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#199

Post by shmerl » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #198

shmerl wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Users will get pushed into native apps. I don't see why it is a problem, if we are talking about DRM. DRM free distributors will use HTML, embracing the open web. Obsessed with DRM ones will use shady plugins and malware-like non browser applications. I'm fine with that - it also clearly marks this distinction for the user. Pushing off the Web here relates to DRM and distributors who insist on using it, not to the…

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good purpose to isolate DRM from the normal technologies.

So the bottom line - W3C being the designers of the future Web concepts should focus on pushing distributors off DRM for the sake of open Web by refusing to be associated with it in any fashion, instead of obliging this insulting preemptive policing by pushing DRM onto the users as a "Web standard".

Re: BBC demands DRM for HTML5

#200

Post by jshen » Sun, Feb 17, 2013, 7:21 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #199

jshen wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I think users will go where the content is that they want to watch. I don't think a normal user will associate it with DRM.

Users won't stop using the Web. If some will want to use DRMed content, they'll use those external applications and / or plugins. And users will figure out the difference - between those publishers who respect them and use DRM free channels (including the Web), and those who don't repsect them and insist on stupid DRM and malware prone tools to distribute their content. So this "pushing" IMHO serves only the good pur…

It's unclear if the world will move towards native apps or stay on the open web. Preventing anyone from having a DRM solution for the web makes it more likely the world will move to native apps. That would be a bad outcome in my opinion.

I also fail to understand your ideology. Anyone who creates content should have the ability to decide how they wish to sell and distribute that content. I think DRM is futile, but I don't think it is bad as you seem to believe.