Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

freeculture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#51

Post by yew »

cromwellian wrote: post #43
nitrogen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. In this case, forget consumers. Once in a while, something is more important than appeasing the masses. A DRM free HTML5 spec is not going to force Hollywood to allow you to play Games of Thrones on your open source Linux browser. Neither is a DRM-infested spec. Instead, you have un…

So if the vast majority of people end up using native apps, and more and more information gets siloed behind these native app clouds on DRM'ed mobile devices, because that's where the money is, and the Web becomes a ghost town, that would be better for everyone? The perfect is the enemy of the good.

'The perfect is the enemy of the good' is the enemy of the good.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#52

Post by bcoates »

cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

Consumers don't even care about content. They care about convienence. It trumps everything. Video on the web is convenient enough that you will be able to watch the TV show du jour through it, and if there is no DRM support in browsers it won't be DRMed.

Pirates are becoming increasingly professional and Hollywood gets to decide if they will spend their legal advantage on defending incompatibility schemes or making money, unless the browsers help them out with the former.

A DRM free HTML5 spec won't have any effect on you being able to watch Game of Thrones on your open source Linux browser aside from maybe giving you an opportunity to pay HBO for it.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#53

Post by cromwellian »

shmerl wrote: post #44
cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!

What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app.

I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#54

Post by shmerl »

cromwellian wrote: post #53
shmerl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!

What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.

>What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app.

Again, what's wrong with that? DRM shouldn't even belong anywhere to begin with. Now suddenly one needs to worry that DRM mechanisms imply security risks because of some native plugins? DRM is insecure and malware/spyware prone by its own definition! You can't have a "healthy" DRM. So there is completely no point to worry about a minor sickness (native plugins), while there is a major one in place (DRM).

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#55

Post by ndesaulniers »

coherentpony wrote: post #36

EME =/= DRM.

Technically speaking, you're right. EME is not DRM, it's a facilitator. From the spec "facilitating the development of robust playback applications supporting a range of content decryption and protection technologies [read DRM]." I may have inserted that last part. Using a new acronym affords Hollywood more time to get implementations in major browsers while we try to raise awareness. Most consumers don't know about DRM, fewer still about EME!

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#56

Post by [deleted] »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #22
cleverjake wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question - why is having a framework that allows for others to provide some form of DRM different from any other plugin system that exists currently?

Different, how? It's different in several ways. For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; meaning it's designed specifically with 1 use case in mind. Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality; I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer. I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what…

[deleted]

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#57

Post by cromwellian »

cromwellian wrote: post #53
shmerl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger. What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!

What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.

If people are set on doing bad risky stuff, having a safer way of doing it is a social good. I don't do heroin, but if people are going to do it anyway, I support giving out clean needles for them.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#58

Post by cromwellian »

Why are optional WebIDL bindings really any different than NPAPI bindings? foo.getDRMStream() is bad, but document.getElementById("drmpluginelement").getDRMStream() is somehow fundamentally better?

Seems like mostly a distinction without a practical difference. Some browser platforms won't be able to ship with the bindings for this, likely the same browser platforms that can't ship the NPAPI plugin.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#59

Post by shmerl »

cromwellian wrote: post #57
cromwellian wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.

If people are set on doing bad risky stuff, having a safer way of doing it is a social good. I don't do heroin, but if people are going to do it anyway, I support giving out clean needles for them.

It is not social good to support unethical things in any way. And needles analogy isn't even proper, since DRM won't become magically more "secure" with EME. EME doesn't remove native DRM code - it just makes the interface with the browser JavaScript based and standard. Black box native DRM code will still be present and will still remain the same security and privacy risk.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#60

Post by [deleted] »

shmerl wrote: post #54
cromwellian wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.

>What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app. Again, what's wrong with that? DRM shouldn't even belong anywhere to begin with. Now suddenly one needs to worry that DRM mechanisms imply security risks because of some native plugins? DRM is insecure and malware/spyware prone by its…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN