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

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#111

Post by duncan_bayne »

VonGuard wrote: post #87

OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix. Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason. Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dic…

> OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major

> reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix.

The W3Cs proposal will not bring NetFlix to Linux. What they - the W3C and Netflix - are proposing is a standardised interface between Javascript and CDMs.

CDM vendors, like Netflix, will be under no compulsion to provide CDMs for other platforms. And they won't.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#112

Post by [deleted] »

VonGuard wrote: post #87

OK, I am gonna catch hell for this, but there is one major reason for having DRM in HTML 5. NetFlix. Streaming video sites are handcuffed to the media owners. Those media owners(Viacom, Time Warner, etc.) REQUIRE DRM in any contract with a streaming video provider. NetFlix uses Silverlight for this reason. Without DRM, NetFlix can never move to HTML5 and VP9. It's sad, but true. The W3C is not just being a buncha dic…

[deleted]

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#113

Post by shmerl »

cynicalkane wrote: post #91
shmerl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. You said it. DRM is close to censorship in its core idea - it's preemptive policing. The market will find routes around it. > I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere. Not true. There is a lot of opposition in principle to the totalitarian approach (which DRM embodies). If there would be no opposition, then it w…

It's true that people are routing around existing DRM solutions. It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM. As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one. The average consumer will not try to route around unfree information as long as it shows up when they click play. Poli…

As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one.

Steam is still DRMed and can be annoying enough. Try to get Loom there to play on your Scummvm and good luck with that. I don't use Steam since I don't want to support DRMed approach. I use GOG and other DRM free distributors for gaming. If DRM isn't very obvious and disruptive it doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't make it any more ethical than a hidden camera which you are unaware of. I'd say it's better when it's noticeable, at least you can be aware of its risks.

> Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.

Tell them about it when their distributor will pull the plug and go out business, informing them that their DRMed content will be lost forever. I'm sure they'll appreciate the view that they shouldn't care about it in such situation.

> It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM.

You don't need to technically threaten something that's already broken. Most DRM is broken in short time. However DRM needs to be threatened on practical and legal levels. Practically by byocotting the DRMed content, and legally by repealing DMCA 1201 and similar laws created to back up DRM.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#114

Post by mwcampbell »

cynicalkane wrote: post #100
mwcampbell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the crypto in the world is worthless for a DRM system if a user can easily circumvent the system by replacing one of the components between the black-box DRM module and the hardware in order to get a perfect digital copy of the "protected" stream. This is why "content protection" systems, like the one introduced in Windows Vista, tend to be so over-reaching; they want to create a leak-proof pipe between the "p…

That's a last mile problem the industry doesn't need to solve. How many people would rather hack hardware than pay money to watch TV and play video games? Of course, if it becomes cost-effective to hardware encrypt the entire stream, I don't think the lack of a W3C standard will make any difference in stopping it.

If the DRM system is sequestered from the rest of our computers, then what I described is far from a last-mile problem. It's not a last-mile problem unless support for a "protected" playback path is baked right into the OS kernel, in a way that users would have some difficulty modifying or disabling (e.g. mandatory driver signing and Secure Boot). As long as the playback path is not secured by the kernel, there's always a way to intercept a perfect digital copy of the output in software. And the user doesn't have to know anything about user-space API hijacking, LD_PRELOAD, custom driver development, or whatever it takes, as long as there's some software they can conveniently install that does the job.

So it seems to me that the proponents of DRM would never accept a DRM system that is sequestered from the rest of the computer.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#115

Post by mythz »

mikeash wrote: post #61
mythz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future of everyone being able to view online video (e.g. Netflix/Hulu/BBC) without a plugin is not getting anywhere closer.

Sure looks like it's getting closer to me. The amount of content I can view without a plugin has absolutely exploded over the past few years. Sure, big Hollywood names aren't in there yet, but it's not like they're the only ones who make videos worth watching.

What you mean by "big Hollywood" the mainstream population refers to as "TV" and "Movies". None of which we're able to watch without a plugin. I do all my TV watching online (95% on Netflix/Hulu), even most of the videos I watch on YouTube require flash, despite being opt-in to using the HTML5 video player.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#116

Post by benatkin »

johnvschmitt wrote: post #46

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 wan…

No, what's futile is this objection by the EFF. But I think it's a token gesture, so it probably doesn't bother them that much.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#117

Post by jlgreco »

youngerdryas wrote: post #101
cynicalkane wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that people are routing around existing DRM solutions. It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM. As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one. The average consumer will not try to route around unfree information as long as it shows up when they click play. Poli…

Exactly. If your time has no value then all is free. Most people value their time, the system does not have to be perfect. People who claim there should be no copyright because the future is inevitable probably still go to the doctor.

"Copyright not existing" and "concessions to DRM not being included in standards" are wildly different things, as are "copyright not existing" and "DRM not existing".

Ten years ago, would you tell people to go to the doctor if they asserted that the music industry could and would survive selling their music without DRM?

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#118

Post by mwcampbell »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #68
alipang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just saying that DRM doesn't concern me. I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. It's an (my) opinion, feel free to complain as much as you prefer. Of course I also feel that businesses need a legitimate means of getting paid, and I prefer them using DRM over convincing congress to let them spy on us.

> I don't feel it infringes on my rights, so no need to complain. That's a pretty narrow criterion for complaint. How about the fact that the purpose of the W3C is to oppose everything that DRM enables? How about the fact that blind, deaf or otherwise-handicapped people have real trouble accessing DRM-crippled content? What of the fact that DRM bit-rot causes massive cultural content loss? Are you concerned by the fa…

I strongly agree with you in general. However, can you provide a pointer to more information about the accessibility problem? One might argue that integrating DRM with HTML5 media playback would actually improve accessibility, since it would separate the DRM from the generally inaccessible Flash-based UIs of current players.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#119

Post by youngerdryas »

jlgreco wrote: post #117
youngerdryas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If your time has no value then all is free. Most people value their time, the system does not have to be perfect. People who claim there should be no copyright because the future is inevitable probably still go to the doctor.

"Copyright not existing" and "concessions to DRM not being included in standards" are wildly different things, as are "copyright not existing" and "DRM not existing" . Ten years ago, would you tell people to go to the doctor if they asserted that the music industry could and would survive selling their music without DRM?

Maybe you misunderstood. The current model will die, like everything.

Re: EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5

#120

Post by eridius »

jlgreco wrote: post #117
youngerdryas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If your time has no value then all is free. Most people value their time, the system does not have to be perfect. People who claim there should be no copyright because the future is inevitable probably still go to the doctor.

"Copyright not existing" and "concessions to DRM not being included in standards" are wildly different things, as are "copyright not existing" and "DRM not existing" . Ten years ago, would you tell people to go to the doctor if they asserted that the music industry could and would survive selling their music without DRM?

The music industry has been selling music without DRM since recorded music was invented. I don't think there's any surprise that they survived by continuing to sell without DRM.
Post reply on HN