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

111–120 of 158 posts

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

#111

Post by gordaco »

shmerl wrote: post #45
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 is still DRMed, in regards to the installers and for major part of the games even requiring Steam client to run them. GOG in contrast isn't, that's why I use GOG and other DRM free distributors, but not Steam.

I've spent literally about 20 times more money on GOG than Steam, for this very same reason. And although I haven't actually found myself in that situation, I'm willing to pay a little more if that grants me absence of DRM.

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

#112

Post by camus »

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

because a drm plugin is a plugin,like flash or java applet. You'll have to download plugin DRM A,B or C to make it work.The only difference is that it will use the video tag.

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

#113

Post by Ygg2 »

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…

Problem is that EMA (aka DRM in browser) will discriminate between open source and proprietary browsers, giving latter a bigger edge (propietary plugins, could in theory be bypassed).

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

#115

Post by kybernetikos »

cromwellian wrote: post #82
kevingadd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

Is there any doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness could raise an unspeakably large amount of money on a crowdfunding platform?

It looked very much like fans of Firefly would have been able to raise enough to continue making the series but they were given not very subtle hints than getting involved in a crowdfunded production would have been bad for the showbiz careers of those involved.

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

#118

Post by andyhmltn »

CJefferson wrote: post #110
mavrc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

IMO DRM has nothing to do with piracy in a lot of people (at least who I've spoken to.) It's more about convenience.

I went to pirate a film last year. Mind you, it was a film I had purchased but I didn't have it on holiday with me so I thought about just downloading it on a torrent site. But then I noticed YouTube offered the same movie for £2.50 rental, streamed on a fast connection in HD 1080p. That is what stopped me pirating it. Not because I couldn't find it, but because I found an option that was more convenient than waiting 8 hours for a download.

That's what Steam does really well. Why would I bother pirating that game, when I can pay a pretty small fee and have it ready to play within half an hour tops?

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

#119

Post by icebraining »

Silhouette wrote: post #93
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…

The problem is that they know as well as we do that DRM doesn't work Unfortunately, as much as some of us would like that to be true, it seems very unlikely. DRM isn't some binary thing where either it prevents copying 100% or it doesn't; it's a deterrent. It works as long as it stops/delays anyone from copying the product illegally so they get it through a legitimate channel instead. It works and is cost-effective i…

Lots of people post on forums about how these companies need to "adapt their business models". Approximately 100% of those people also enjoy content made by the "lazy big media companies" in question under their current business model, which is becoming less effective. Wanting cheap/free access to that content by making sure that the legal/economic framework under which is was produced continues to be circumvented is a Faustian bargain. It's not sustainable. But no-one seems to be having much success with ideas for alternative business models so far.

The fact that such people consume big media content now does not mean they wouldn't rather dispense with such content in exchange for the elimination of such laws.

In fact, an argument could be made that the production of such content smothers other, less capital intensive content made with lower expectations of large returns (for example, theater was much more successful around here before the big Hollywood blockbusters came to the scene).

However, the same conditions are toxic to smaller, independent content producers who might have done something innovative or catered to a niche market.

I don't doubt that the current conditions are toxic, but I don't think "those people" argue that the status quo is OK. Whether the conditions they argue for are toxic or not remains to be seen.

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

#120

Post by rimantas »

Alas, article does not explain where the betrayal is. Or even what the author considers "web". Someone is too self-centric and has no idea what an average web user is and what he wants.

Honestly, rants like this sound a lot like "allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of marriage" and alike. How exactly?

Will the ability to have DRM'ed content in HTML suddenly shut down "the open web"? No.

Post reply on HN