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

81–90 of 158 posts

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

#81

Post by anoncow »

cromwellian wrote: post #46
kevingadd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hook…

I didn't say the Web sucks, I said consumers will perceive that the Web sucks if they can't find the experiences they want there. I've been on the Web since Tim Berners-Lee announced the first web page, I'm rpetty sure I know stuff about it.

Consumers will have to install an extra plugin to get the same experience as native apps. This is better than having DRM built into html5 which will make unreasonable demands from the browser and the OS. With DRM in html5, it might be possible that Linux based systems may not be able to support html5. If you can have completely open source code, go ahead and add DRM support to html5.

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

#82

Post by cromwellian »

kevingadd wrote: post #76
kvb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

You're assuming that blockbuster movies are a business model that will continue to work in the future. That's highly questionable - in the game industry developers and publishers are being forced to accept the possibility that the blockbuster model is no longer going to be a reliable source of revenue or the right way to develop things. I won't claim to know enough to say whether this is true for film or television,…

Possible, I'll buy that. Maybe YouTube will one day kill off the major networks and studios, and production will get cheap, just like startups have gotten a lot cheaper to run with EC2.

But I'm still going to go see Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness and I'm not holding my breath that a non-DRM version will be cooked up outside the blockbuster system anytime soon. :)

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

#83

Post by anoncow »

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…

>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.

A DRM laden HTML5 spec will mean "my open source Linux browser" will not be able to support the entire HTML5 spec. This is far more unacceptable to me.

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

#84

Post by mavrc »

sillysaurus wrote: post #41
ajross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but at least it won't be polluted by technically ineffective and poorly justified nonsense put there to assuage the fears of a handful of ignorant content executives. It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. I'm not asking for a DRM-free world, but I still hold out hope that if we continue to push back forcefu…

It's just dumb. DRM is just dumb. It doesn't work for anything but the most naive case. It won't prevent distribution of "pirated" content, ever. Steam's DRM is why I've bought more games than I've pirated. iTunes DRM was why I've bought more songs than I would've pirated. They were both more convenient than pirating the content. Is a distribution channel a form of DRM?

> Steam's DRM is why I've bought more games than I've pirated.

Steam's DRM has nothing to do with why individuals buy games on Steam. Steam offsets the net negative of DRM by bundling in a number of very attractive value-adds, like the ability to reinstall your games on any system without media, keeping all your games up to date for you, syncs settings and such (for Steamworks games) and provides an attractive platform for communicating between friends/arranging games and such. Not to mention that they have great sales. (For me, the first one is the killer feature. I hate playing the install + patch game.)

Now, they could easily provide all of those things without adding any DRM at all, but they don't, presumably because neither they nor their customers (which, make no mistake, are primarily the companies who distribute games through their platform) want it enough to cause it to come to pass.

I mean, I love Steam, it's incredibly handy and has singlehandedly transformed the way I consume games. But let's not pretend it's something it's not.

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

#86

Post by bzbarsky »

cleverjake wrote: post #4
kxra wrote: post #3

TL;DR: # Myths 1. that DRM doesn’t work; that it exists to protect creators, but since it is easily cracked and can be worked around, it is largely ineffective and irrelevant 2. that DRM in HTML5 is a necessary compromise to finally bring an end to the proliferation of proprietary browser plugins such as Adobe Flash Player and Micrisoft Silverlight 3. that the web needs DRM in HTML5 in order for Hollywood and other m…

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?

Well, one difference is that currently existing plug-in frameworks have well-defined APIs that are used to talk to the plug-in. This is why the same plug-in binary blob can be used in Firefox and Safari and Opera and Chrome, for example: they all implement NPAPI.

One issue with the current EME spec is that it doesn't actually define an API for the browser to interact with the CDM. It defines an API for in-page JS to ask the browser to interact with the CDM, which is the web-facing bit, but how browsers and CDMs interact is entirely undefined.

What that means in practice is that it would be perfectly spec-compliant for Google to ship a CDM that only works with Chrome, for Microsoft to ship one that only works with IE, and for Apple to ship one that only works with Safari. Should you then have the misfortune of not using one of those browsers, you wouldn't be able to view the video in question.

Oddly enough, Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all in favor of this part of the spec last I checked.

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

#87

Post by bzbarsky »

cantankerous wrote: post #79

The W3C must ultimately do what it thinks is in the web's best interest. Not the interest of big media companies, or the interest of those against DRM. If they implement a system by which DRM can be reasonably added to the spec to bring those users and companies into the fold, I don't think I'd have much to call them out on, even though I don't like DRM. That bone is to be picked with the media companies themselves.

The W3C will ultimately do what is in its members' best interests: it's an industry consortium.

Its members are whoever paid the membership fee.

There are plenty of instances of the W3C doing things that its members asked for that were either irrelevant to the web or detrimental to it, because there is no "W3C" per se when it comes to getting stuff done, just the set of members.

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

#88

Post by bzbarsky »

whiddershins wrote: post #20

What is the complaint. It isn't clearly summed up here. Noone will force you to use DRM on your website. Noone will force you to browse websites that use DRM. What do you care what others choose to do with their sites and content, unless you believe you have the right to access everything everyone creates, in an unrestricted fashion, for free, in perpetuity.

One complaint is that as the spec stands it's impossible to interoperably implement in browsers just by implementing the spec. You also have to go and do some out-of-band agreements which may or may not happen.

In other words, it's a "standard" that deliberately sets up a situation where behavior across browsers will differ.

Suggestions that the interface between the CDM and the browser actually be standardized have been made ... and ignored.

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

#89

Post by shmerl »

kalleboo wrote: post #78
shmerl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599601 DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk. Focusing on minor issue (native plugin) while ignoring the major one (DRM) sounds strange. And in reality this whole EME thing won't even remove native DRM code. It just will hook it into JavaScript. The risk caused by DRM won't get any less than it is already.

> DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk Source please

Simple logic. DRM requires secret (from the user) code to run on user's machine. DRM doesn't trust the user (user is treated as potential criminal) for the sake of content owner interests. Such kind of predisposition makes it very reasonable for the user not to trust the content owner in return and to treat DRM by default as a privacy breaching malware and security risk (until proven otherwise - which isn't possible, since it's a black box). Trust is always mutual. How else can you view this?

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

#90

Post by cleverjake »

shmerl wrote: post #71
cleverjake wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play to devils advocate - because that other unethical junk requires additional downloads and poses multiple security vulnerabilities. Right? Why wouldn't a sort of 'native plugin' be better in every sense of the word for the end user?

See below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599601 DRM by definition implies security and privacy risk. Focusing on minor issue (native plugin) while ignoring the major one (DRM) sounds strange. And in reality this whole EME thing won't even remove native DRM code. It just will hook it into JavaScript. The risk caused by DRM won't get any less than it is already.

>>Focusing on minor issue (native plugin) while ignoring the major one (DRM) sounds strange.

I don't think it is a minor issue at all. My biggest complaint with flash has been the security vulnerabilities, and I trust Google/Mozilla with web encryption WAY more than I do Adobe. Can you explain why you consider it to be such a minor issue?

>>And in reality this whole EME thing won't even remove native DRM code. It just will hook it into JavaScript.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'in reality'. Thats it's entire purpose.

>>The risk caused by DRM won't get any less than it is already. I know? Who is arguing the opposite?

Post reply on HN