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

EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#41

Post by duncan_bayne »

betterunix wrote: post #26
kunai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...what? That would be quite ridiculous. And the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive. Nobody can control the Web. The W3C is forgetting that.

"the "safe" browser thing will never happen, so long as open-source is alive" So people who choose to use only free software will be excluded from large parts of the web. How is that a good outcome?

I'm curious: how do you think an EME standard in HTML5 will change that?

Just because your browser supports EME doesn't oblige CDM vendors to produce a version compatible with your platform.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#42

Post by icebraining »

w1ntermute wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vote for the hard way.

So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.

The DRM proposals required binary blobs too for the actual decryption, so you'd probably be unable to use it on Linux either way.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#43

Post by alipang »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #33

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM imp…

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it.

To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#45

Post by tolmasky »

alipang wrote: post #43
duncan_bayne wrote: post #33

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM imp…

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

> DRM allows you to voluntarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about.

Of course, and I think it is also fair for consumers to voluntarily protest DRM before it is placed on our devices by expressing our concerns, as opposed to afterward when we have to do so by voting with our wallets. I don't think its "my right" to have DRM-less devices, but I think all the criticisms about freedom and security are valid as long as they are meant to appeal to the producers by signaling our desires as consumers (this as opposed to for example suggesting there should be a law against DRM which I would be against). In theory the ideal would be for everyone to be on the same page before these decisions get made.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#46

Post by johnvschmitt »

Good for EFF. DRM is futile.

There is NO stopping people from recording what's on their screen (with a cell phone camera among other devices).

What we've seen is:

A) The more barriers you put in front of legitimate use, the more you see illegitimate use grow.

B) The EFF is rock solid in standing up & protecting our rights & values in the modern, internet, connected age. Please help fund them.

Meaning: DRM all you want. Make it so that you can ONLY see Game of Thrones if you pay $100,000!!! Great! And, imagine how long it'd take for a copy (lower fidelity, sure) to get in the hands of a larger audience that you can't control, who doesn't like you, who you collect no $ from.

Or: Drop DRM, & go for "iTunes or Netflix" or other distribution methods that are EASY & fair. Watch your revenue boom, while you collect user stats to make your next content even more appealing & marketable.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#47

Post by duncan_bayne »

alipang wrote: post #43
duncan_bayne wrote: post #33

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM imp…

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

> As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist

> society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer.

> Don't like it? Don't use it.

I agree, but there's more to it than that. From the W3C site:

"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that develops open standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web."

... and ...

"One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability."

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of a capitalist society, to lobby the W3C to refuse the addition of EME. It is inimical to their own stated goals (there are other conflicts too; see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html for details).

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the initiation of force. Companies should be free to build their own DRM systems, and others to use or not use them as they choose.

But the W3C should have no part of that, and the HTML5 standard should not be crippled by the inclusion of DRM.

Another angle to consider is our cultural heritage. More and more of that is moving to the Web; if we tie it up with DRM, bitrot will mean that in a generation or two most of it will be inaccessible.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#48

Post by icebraining »

chris_mahan wrote: post #44
icebraining wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can already say that.

But they would be lying.

Yes, but that would be regardless of any added DRM. It's not like a "HTML5 Browser" can't have additional features - in fact, they all do.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#49

Post by alipang »

zanny wrote: post #34
kunai wrote: post #3

The only true solution to the problem of DRM is to kill Hollywood. It's unlikely to happen, though. Many others have reiterated on this point, so I'm not going to waste my time iterating yet once more. http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html

Economics will kill Hollywood if we resist their bribes to cripple open technology and they flounder into obscurity. They currently control most of the chess board (from ISPs to copyright to the law in general) but we hold the key pieces (that are becoming more essential over time as the Internet becomes more global and pervasive).

I doubt killing Hollywood will be the solution. Industry will always try to gain unfair advantages through legislation as long as we let them. That is, as long as government is too large to really care about the little guy.

Harmful legislation is much more present in large legislative agencies such as the US government or (to some extent) the EU.

Decentralizing legislative authority to e.g. the states is the only way to get laws acted in your own best interest.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#50

Post by jlgreco »

alipang wrote: post #43
duncan_bayne wrote: post #33

I've made this point already on the W3C CEO's blog, but it bears repeating here: DRM removes control of certain aspects of a device that I own, and places it in the hands of another. It does so in a manner that could not be less trustworthy: most DRM solutions are proprietary, closed-source applications. This means that I can't rely on others to audit it for me (as with FOSS) and I can't audit it myself. Some DRM imp…

DRM allows you to volontarily give up whatever control of your machine you're talking about. As painful as it is, one part of living in a capitalist society is to exercise your right/power as a consumer. Don't like it? Don't use it. To me, DRM is not something that infringes on your freedom, though I'm very glad we have the EFF when they spend their time combatting things like surveillance, that are not opt-in.

> Don't like it? Don't use it.

...and also feel free to complain about it. ...which is what he is doing.

I have never understood responses such as yours. No part of being able to vote with your money means that you should only vote with your money. Capitalism does not mean that people shouldn't complain.

Post reply on HN