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

131–140 of 158 posts

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

#131

Post by Silhouette »

icebraining wrote: post #119
Silhouette wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

That is true.

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

That is also true, I agree.

However, the overwhelming majority of commentary I see on all sides of the debate doesn't particularly support either of those premises. As far as I can tell, I am fairly unusual myself, simply because I actively avoid most DRM'd products even though I would probably enjoy the material and would consider the asking price fair if not for the downsides of DRM.

The only exceptions I make regularly are low-end copy protection on things like DVDs that I'm quite sure I could crack if anyone ever abused it, and high-end systems that come with expensive software I have little (legal) choice but to buy for work. The former have never caused me any problems. The latter have stung me on several occasions, and are one of the main reasons I think DRM should be regulated so if suppliers want to use it, they also have to accept the consequences if they get it wrong.

It seems most people I come across will simply buy DRM'd content anyway, even if they later whinge that it doesn't work properly. Just look at all the people buying AAA games even though the companies running them mess up time after time so the games often don't even work properly on launch day. EA has been voted "worst company in America" more than once, but just look at all the kids still preordering the latest titles for their game collection! People complain about DRM on their favourite forum, but then they still buy whatever it was they apparently couldn't live without anyway.

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

#132

Post by Intermernet »

cleverjake wrote: post #73
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it, and I don't see how this is a good one. If you could further your point, I would love to hear it. >> Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality Take away what functionality?…

"A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it"

I'm Australian so this probably won't translate, but if I go into someone's house, and they have a brand new gun rack on the wall, with no gun in it, a few thoughts go through my head:

1. They have a gun but have secreted it somewhere while I'm around. 2. They are going to get a gun. 3. They bought the house with a new gun rack, and don't object enough to guns to remove it immediately.

Now, as was stated earlier, DRM (like a lot of guns) was invented with only one purpose. If I see the governing body of an open web standard starting to stick in frameworks for DRM, I think 3 very similar thoughts to those above.

In short, not being able to find an argument against something, doesn't mean it won't leave you wondering what the actual use case of this will be, and start thinking if it really needs an argument against it. I personally think it needs a whole bunch of better arguments for the proposal than those that have been raised til now.

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

#133

Post by MatthewPhillips »

cleverjake wrote: post #73
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it, and I don't see how this is a good one. If you could further your point, I would love to hear it. >> Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality Take away what functionality?…

> Take away what functionality? The ability to download audio/video?

The ability to download audio/video already exists in computers. DRM prevents you from doing what you want with the bits that are sent to you; hence it restricts native computer functionality.

> To be fair, this isn't. EME is just a way for people to create addons that leverage native encryption. The same is true of the current plugin system.

This is a red herring; EME only exists to facilitate DRM. EME was designed specifically with DRM in mind. There is no other use case. It's a convenient way for EME supporters to ignore the real issues, but it's valid to talk about a technology's real world uses when discussing its validity.

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

#134

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

cromwellian wrote: post #58

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.

Well, we can at least not make the situation worse. We already have NPAPI, let's not add another proprietary plugin API.

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

#135

Post by andyhmltn »

CJefferson wrote: post #128
andyhmltn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stoppe…

Is it possible that you (and people you have spoken to) have more disposable income to buy entertainment than they have time to consume that entertainment? People above that line are happy to spend more money to save even small amounts of time. People below that line often want to pirate, to allow them to spend their money on other things.

Possibly, although I wouldn't say it mattered. £2.50 can hardly be classed as a huge amount of money. The benefit of paying that amount vs waiting a few days and getting a version that's below in terms of quality is pretty obvious.

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

#136

Post by zb »

Intermernet wrote: post #130

Just wondering, is there any provision in any OSS license (or scope to add one) that prevents the code being used in any DRM software or firmware? I know it wouldn't act retrospectively, and I'm not sure if any OSS libraries are actually in use in any DRM software, but it may at least set a trend. I'd love to see the next open source game changer be open to all except those who oppose openness :-)

No, by definition, since that would no longer be Open Source.

http://opensource.org/osd

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

#137

Post by anoncow »

voyou wrote: post #121
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?

"What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies" It's the same as the DRM-encumbered business model: make movies and charge people to watch them. DRM doesn't make that model any more or less effective.

This. They already have legal options to protect their IP. If they still want to use DRM, continue using plugins.

Why include DRM in html5 and potentially alienate open source operating systems?

Why use html5 to help sell more windows/osx copies?

Why use html5 to promote vendor lock-in?

Are copyright laws not enough protection?

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

#138

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…

>Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content

Therefore, it is the moral duty of those behind html5 to make sure that interests of consumers are not compromised.

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

#139

Post by shmerl »

Silhouette wrote: post #129
shmerl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 outw…

By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself. Yes, it does. I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that. The question isn't whether DRM causes harm, it's whether it also causes a greater benefit for a net win. But in my view, their inner desire for control outweighs any reason and logic. You might also want to consider the po…

You might also want to consider the possibility that the executives running these Big Media giants are well aware of the balancing act we're talking about, have access to much more information about the real costs and benefits of DRM schemes than you or I do, and have made a sound business decision based on the empirical data in front of them.

The logic they use to justify DRM (to the public) is so flawed and based on such bogus numbers of "lost sales", that I have no trust whatsoever in their sincerity or even ability to use common sense. The fact that DRM doesn't stop piracy is well known, yet these content producers pretend that they don't know it.

However if we assume they aren't morons, then it looks like they indeed have some real interest and reason behind DRM, which however has nothing to do with piracy. It can very possibly be related to their desire to control distribution technologies, prevent innovation and protect their business models threatened by the digital world. It drives them to be paranoidally obsessed with DRM (preemptive policing of the first order) and its derivatives like DMCA (preemptive policing of higher orders, which are aimed to stop violating the preemptive policing of the first order - i.e. breaking the DRM). It's easier to see it in DMCA, that it has already completely nothing to do with piracy, but has to do with desire for control, and in retrospect DMCA reveals the real reasoning behind DRM and its unethical nature.

Either way (whether they are just foolish, or they are evil), the public should strongly oppose DRM and DMCA on the ethical grounds.

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

#140

Post by icebraining »

Silhouette wrote: post #131
icebraining wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. That is true. 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 That is also true, I agree. However, the overwhelming majority of commentary I…

Frankly, I don't get your argument. You said that there was a problem because the critics of DRM and current business models were consuming the content while circumventing the economic framework, so the situation is unsustainable; now you said that the people who complain about DRM still buy the products anyway. That doesn't sound unsustainable to me.
Post reply on HN