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

101–110 of 158 posts

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

#101

Post by Silhouette »

cromwellian wrote: post #62
cromwellian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(reply to below). Only if you consider DRM unethical. I don't consider non-free software, or DRM software unethical. I consider it shitty, and I am free to ignore it if I want. You don't have any "right" to non-DRMed content. I say this as a person who hates DRM and who spent most of my youth cracking copyright disk protection on 8 and 16-bit software. I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers…

I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content.

I think as a commercial reality that is true, but I also think that to counter abuse there needs to be some form of regulation for content providers who "sell" something with DRM and then mess up the DRM implementation so their customers can't enjoy that purchase fully. There have been far too many cases recently, particularly with software, where someone's DRM has gone way over the line and undermined the basic product.

A consumer doesn't have to buy a DRM'd product, but if they do, they have a right that if they do buy it then they get what they paid for. A regulatory framework that guaranteed an automatic refund of a significant part of the purchase price for every incident/day that use was adversely affected, combined with compensation for both time/distress caused and any actual consequential losses, doesn't seem unreasonable.

If that means that suppliers who insist on installing DRM along with their product and then break someone's computer by getting it wrong wind up paying out far more than they ever charged in the first place, well, perhaps they should consider themselves lucky that they aren't being criminally prosecuted for causing the same harm instead as any other malware distributor would be.

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

#102

Post by shmerl »

Silhouette wrote: post #97
shmerl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider DRM unethical, but even besides that, it by definition implies privacy and security risk. You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. That's where the unethical aspect comes in.

You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. It's hardly preemptive. People have been illegally ripping off content since forever, and they've been doing it on a potentially business-destroying scale since the Internet became popular. The official law enforcement bodies conveniently sidestep the whole issue by making copyright infringement a civil…

It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff". It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution.

What other choice has society left them?

Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, so they shouldn't be surprised that not many customers respect them.

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

#103

Post by runn1ng »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #100
runn1ng wrote: post #94

I don't see the big deal. Right now DRM depends on proprietary plug-ins. If this is allowed in HTML5, DRM will still depend on proprietary plug-ins. What is different? edit: also, browser vendors don't have to implement it if they don't want to. Really, I don't like this DRM thing that much, but I am kind of indifferent to this.

>What is different? That's kind of the point. The people promoting this seem to be misunderstanding what the result would be. It would in no way reduce the amount of poorly written proprietary code full of security vulnerabilities. It would just move it around a little. But in the meantime it breaks the web. Even if you support the new HTML5 spec, you can't actually support it without having the proprietary black box…

But it is NOT platform agnostic anyway.

That is my point. Right now, you have to have certain plugins to see certain sites. At this very moment.

So according to the new specification, there won't be with a specified plugin in TYPE attribute (or something similar in ), but probably something else and similar with EME. Why does it matter so much?

If this is not passed, evil corporations will use and again. If this is and browsers will support it, they will use EME instead.

Again, I can't see any big change.

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

#104

Post by Silhouette »

shmerl wrote: post #102
Silhouette wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. It's hardly preemptive. People have been illegally ripping off content since forever, and they've been doing it on a potentially business-destroying scale since the Internet became popular. The official law enforcement bodies conveniently sidestep the whole issue by making copyright infringement a civil…

It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff" . It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution. What other choice has society left them? Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, s…

I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring that all negative effects of DRM schemes must be prominently disclosed before purchasing, with a mandatory security warning that will discourage consumers from buying.

More generally, if you consider DRM to be preemptive policing and not a solution to content piracy, what do you propose instead? If you've got a better idea that would actually work, I'm sure the content industry would love to know about it. Right now, there aren't a lot of those around.

Edit in response to your extra comment, "Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have.":

As with most things in life, respect is earned. Sadly, society as a whole has proven beyond much doubt that it can't collectively be trusted in this respect and a large proportion of people will pirate content if given a chance. People do that for a lot of different reasons, and understanding those reasons is probably key to finding a happier balance for all concerned. However, a significant number of people just see that they can rip off something they want without paying for it and without a high probability of being punished for it, and they do. It's odd, because most of those people wouldn't steal from a store or try to con their neighbour out of their savings. It's just become socially acceptable to a lot of people to pirate content, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all.

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

#105

Post by _pmf_ »

kvb wrote: post #72
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…

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?

> 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?

That's something they have to care about, not I. I have the right to say "fuck you" and not give a shit about their business model. They had ample time to at least make a feeble try to start adapting, but so far this has not happened. I see a "blockbuster" movie about twice a year and could not care less if the typical Hollywood drivel completely stops.

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

#106

Post by shmerl »

Silhouette wrote: post #104
shmerl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff" . It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution. What other choice has society left them? Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, s…

I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring tha…

I think content industry doesn't want to hear anything - since all was already said. DRM gives them the taste of control, and that matters to them more than piracy (since DRM does nothing to stop piracy, it only irritates legitimate users). But for those who are willing to hear - I already said above. Treat customers with respect, and some of those who pirate now can start buying to show their respect in return.

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

#107

Post by AnthonyMouse »

runn1ng wrote: post #103
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is different? That's kind of the point. The people promoting this seem to be misunderstanding what the result would be. It would in no way reduce the amount of poorly written proprietary code full of security vulnerabilities. It would just move it around a little. But in the meantime it breaks the web. Even if you support the new HTML5 spec, you can't actually support it without having the proprietary black box…

But it is NOT platform agnostic anyway. That is my point. Right now, you have to have certain plugins to see certain sites. At this very moment . So according to the new specification, there won't be with a specified plugin in TYPE attribute (or something similar in ), but probably something else and similar with EME. Why does it matter so much? If this is not passed, evil corporations will use and again. If this is…

We should oppose the old plug-ins just like we do the new ones. The big change is that the old plug-ins have been starting to die out. People originally used Flash because it was the best way to play video in a web browser, not because it had DRM. As improvements to HTML eliminate the non-DRM need for such plug-ins, the plug-ins start to go away. Apple got away with prohibiting Flash on iOS because it became possible to use Youtube et al without it. We ought to be encouraging the legacy plug-ins to finish going away, not reintroducing new ones.

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

#108

Post by shmerl »

Silhouette wrote: post #104
shmerl wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff" . It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution. What other choice has society left them? Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, s…

I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring tha…

> it can't collectively be trusted in this respect

You are missing an important point - pirates will pirate. That's it. DRM or not - they will. Respect was referring those who are decent people and are willing to support the creators. By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself. But in my view, their inner desire for control outweighs any reason and logic. Otherwise they'd drop all this DRM idiocy already.

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

#109

Post by NinjaWarrior »

campuscodi wrote: post #99

This is because all you dummies were too busy lauding Google's services and nobody notices how "evil" they are. This came as a proposal from Google. It was tested in Chromium first. The DRM is essential for their "World-saving" ChromeOS that nobody really cares about.

Yep, if Google implements DRM, no one can stop it. The web is a platform for big software vendors after all, because no other player can virtually implement and maintain this enlarged platform and browser runtimes. Evil browser vendors will take over the role of evil plug-in vendors. Game over.

I predicted this catastrophe when everyone was attacking Flash.

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

#110

Post by CJefferson »

mavrc wrote: post #84
sillysaurus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 platfo…

There is at least one game I would have pirated, but could not find a functional pirated copy of, so I bought it on steam.

If steam had no DRM I am confident it would have been much easier for me to pirate it (I would have copied it from the friend who suggested it to me).

Post reply on HN